ACLU Vs Creationism

[lewri]

jlw:

Lew, don’t understand your point. We all know the Pope is a man and not God. Duh. As a Catholic, the bible passage seems pretty straightforward to me, too. It all comes down to faith.

My point is that (I believe it was Catholic 2003) who made a reference that the Pope believes in evolution to some degree. Sorry, but the Pope isn’t a scientist. He’s Pope. As Pope, he should be looking to his bible. There is NO actual physical evidence of humans being anything other than humans. Many pieces found supposedly belonging to humans “millions of years ago” have been found to be a 1930’s girl or whatnot. Just like the example of two different type of birds (Oriole and Canary say) are anything other than birds.

I may be out of line, but… relying on the Pope who made a statement that goes against what his biblical view is supposed to be, isn’t right.

In Christ,
Lew

 

[Trelow]

Catholic2003:

When it comes to science, I think the discussion should be limited to what can be tested by the scientific method, with the understanding that there are many, many important things which cannot be ascertained in this manner.

So just because you can’t test something voids the possibility of it’s truth, scientifically speaking?

 

[jlw]

lewri:

My point is that (I believe it was Catholic 2003) who made a reference that the Pope believes in evolution to some degree. Sorry, but the Pope isn’t a scientist. He’s Pope. As Pope, he should be looking to his bible. There is NO actual physical evidence of humans being anything other than humans. Many pieces found supposedly belonging to humans “millions of years ago” have been found to be a 1930’s girl or whatnot. Just like the example of two different type of birds (Oriole and Canary say) are anything other than birds.

I may be out of line, but… relying on the Pope who made a statement that goes against what his biblical view is supposed to be, isn’t right.

In Christ,
Lew

Well, my friend, the Pope most certainly does look to his bible. He just doesn’t look to his Bible ONLY (Just like the apostles didn’t have a bible, let alone one with chapters, numbers, etc).

We may have evolved to some degree. But we just KNOW as believers, that God created it all, period end of story.

 

[Catholic2003]

lewri:

This is exactly why there are Protestants! lol The Pope is a man. He’s not God.

Moses was also a man. But God inspired Moses, the Popes, and a whole slew of other people, and continues to inspire His Church today.

lewri:

Seems straight forward to me. If I don’t BELIEVE Him there, why would I BELIEVE Christ is God incarnate?

God has given mankind many revelations of faith and morals over time, culminating in His Son. Blessed are those who believe.

But that doesn’t make the Bible a math textbook, a science textbook, a history textbook, or a geography textbook. The message of salvation has nothing to do with the fact that 2 + 3 equals 5.

lewri:

Is God lying? Is God a fool? God forbid!

So do you believe that pi = 3? Or was God lying when He said that the tank in I Kings 7:23 was 30 cubits in circumference when it was really 31.4 cubits? Or is that not lying, just “rounding”? I personally don’t see that whether the circumference was 30 cubits or 31.4 cubits really matters in regard to my faith and my salvation.

Maybe God “rounded” billions of years into six days as well. I personally don’t see that whether creation took six days or billions of years really matters in regard to my faith and my salvation.

When missionaries find a group of people without even a written language, and they translate the Bible into the basic concepts of that group’s language and culture, the important thing is that the message of salvation is presented correctly. I think God also knows what is the important point when He reveals Himself to us.

lewri:

Evolution is theory. Nothing more and nothing less.

Evolution is a well-accepted scientific theory with a substantial amount of evidence to support it. Recent advances in bioinformatics in comparison of DNA across species are revolutionizing the development of medical drugs.

lewri:

Do you believe the bible? I do!

I believe the message of salvation that is contained in the Bible. I don’t believe every word of the Bible literally.

The last straw for me was when I heard for the fourth time how the “Eye of the Needle” was a rock structure where you had to remove all the packs from your camel before the camel could fit through it. Get a grip - Jesus was engaging in a bit of hyperbole!

 

[lewri]

<<<Well, my friend, the Pope most certainly does look to his bible. He just doesn’t look to his Bible ONLY (Just like the apostles didn’t have a bible, let alone one with chapters, numbers, etc). >>>

<<We may have evolved to some degree. But we just KNOW as believers, that God created it all, period end of story.>>

I’m sure the Pope does look to his bible, but a biblical view of life is not one of science. Science is there to help us get to answers, not to make them up. Especially the Darwinist/Evolutionist viewpoint.

The disciples didn’t need the written Word, they HAD The Word! They wrote it for US.

There is no proof that we evolved from anything. Especially from another species. Yes, God did create all, but he didn’t create it via evolution.

In Christ,
Lew

 

[Catholic2003]

Trelow:

So just because you can’t test something voids the possibility of it’s truth, scientifically speaking?

There are many truths that lie outside the realm of science. God is one of them.

If something can’t be tested, its truth or falsity is outside the realm of science. But it certainly can be discussed and examined in other fields of inquiry and learning.

 

[Trelow]

But wouldn’t the best time to present other theories be at the same time you are discussing origin of man? Even if these other theories are not-scientific?

 

[jlw]

lewri:

The disciples didn’t need the written Word, they HAD The Word! They wrote it for US.

How did Paul “have” it?? How did his followers “get” it from Paul? How did Paul “give” it to Timothy?? How did Timothy pass it on??

I don’t mean to change the subject. This might be better addressed at the Ask the Apologist Forum.

As to evolution, we DID NOT come from apes. But we may have adapted as a human species. So did birds, fish, etc. God willed it all to be so, however one looks at it.

 

[Catholic2003]

Trelow:

But wouldn’t the best time to present other theories be at the same time you are discussing origin of man? Even if these other theories are not-scientific?

Not in my opinion. I see a lot of problems that occur when the line between science and other branches of knowledge is blurred. This is what happens when scientists leave science to speculate on the existence of God, whether it is to speculate that God exists or that God doesn’t exist.

I think the scientists are starting to get the point:

The battle between creationists and evolutionists continues to be fought in the US, with opponents of Darwinism labelling evolution as a ‘secular religion’. In an essay published last year a cautionary note was sounded: ‘We who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave other discussions for a more appropriate time.’ (M. Ruse, Science, 2003, 299, 1523).

 

[Trelow]

Catholic2003:

Not in my opinion. I see a lot of problems that occur when the line between science and other branches of knowledge is blurred. This is what happens when scientists leave science to speculate on the existence of God, whether it is to speculate that God exists or that God doesn’t exist.

I think the scientists are starting to get the point:

All branches are from the same Tree and cannot thrive on their own.

 

[Catholic2003]

Trelow:

All branches are from the same Tree and cannot thrive on their own.

All branches are from the same Tree. Nothing can trive away from God.

But do you agree with Maureen Callister on the Dover school board that the alternative theory that pi = 3 should be presented in mathematics class when students start discussing the circumference of the circle in geometry?

There is a point where if you want to learn mathematics, then you need to buckle down and study mathematics, even though there are plenty of other subjects out there, and the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms may be wrong anyway. The same applies to biology – The scientific method may produce exactly the the wrong answer when it comes to evolution, because of how God decided to make the world, but you can’t be stopping class every five minutes to remind students of that possibility.

 

[The_Hidden_Life]

Catholic2003:

There are many truths that lie outside the realm of science. God is one of them.

If something can’t be tested, its truth or falsity is outside the realm of science. But it certainly can be discussed and examined in other fields of inquiry and learning.

Well, it would be nice if you were in charge of public education instead of those who are. There is no serious discussion of “truths that lie outside the realm of science” regarding the origins of life or just about religion in general in almost all public schools.

As I see it the main problem with “teaching evolution” (very broad here) is that the people who write the textbooks and the teachers who explain it overstep the theory. They make all kinds of unsupported statements that many people who research evolutionary theory do believe, but would probably acknowledge aren’t part of the “theory of common descent” or whatever you called it.

Isn’t the basic problem with most science as taught today that it presupposes there are only natural/material causes to things?

I would be fine with my child only learning evolution in school IF just about every page of the textbook was plastered with, “If we look only at natural causes of events, setting aside other types of information for now…”

Assuming that the “for now” would eventually come and they would be allowed to discuss these other potential sources of information with as much seriousness as the naturalistic/materialistic scientific information was presented.

In my high school biology class, the teacher did make an attempt to preface the teaching of evolutionary theory with other ideas. He told us that some people think life began in outer space, some people think a supernatural being created us and other ideas. End of two minute presentation and of course it was not discussed in any other class.

I wish public education would get over religion-phobia in every subject. I could handle my kids learning about Hinduism if they were at least allowed to see that Christianity has a place in history fact too.

 

[Trelow]

Catholic2003:

All branches are from the same Tree. Nothing can trive away from God.

But do you agree with Maureen Callister on the Dover school board that the alternative theory that pi = 3 should be presented in mathematics class when students start discussing the circumference of the circle in geometry?

There is a point where if you want to learn mathematics, then you need to buckle down and study mathematics, even though there are plenty of other subjects out there, and the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms may be wrong anyway. The same applies to biology – The scientific method may produce exactly the the wrong answer when it comes to evolution, because of how God decided to make the world, but you can’t be stopping class every five minutes to remind students of that possibility.

About the Pi thing, you are being silly, rounding things off after scribing them many times makes sense to me. I came from a very fundamentalist background (as I suspect you did as well?) but have reasoned that I lacked much common sense then.

I think it comes down to our two different schools of thought. I gather that you believe that each subject should be taught independently of one another. I believe that each subject should be taught in relationship to one another.

Peace brother.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

The Hidden Life:

Isn’t the basic problem with most science as taught today that it presupposes there are only natural/material causes to things?

Science is generally only useful in talking about things with natural/material causes. Anything that doesn’t have a natural/material cause is not really amenable to scientific analysis. Thus you can not design a “scientific” study to determine if prayer works, and if someone shows you such a thing, you should politely ignore it.

The question between “evolution” and “intelligent design” may thus not be a question of which is better supported by the “scientific evidence”, as I suppose both can be invoked to explain the world as we observe it. It’s more a question of philosophy.

Similarly, one can describe and predict the orbits of the planets around the sun pretty accurately using Newton’s laws of gravitation. Or one can attribute the curved paths of the planets as the results of angels continually pushing them as they move around the sun. And assuming the angels always choose to push in the same way, you can predict based on past observation how they will behave in the future. Both approaches yield the same results. One invokes natural/material causes, while the other invokes supernatural causes. You’re free to choose which you’d like. Should we be including caveats on the pages of our science texts mentioning the possibility that planetary motion, which we attribute to gravity, might also be the action of angels?

 

[Catholic2003]

Trelow:

About the Pi thing, you are being silly, rounding things off after scribing them many times makes sense to me. I came from a very fundamentalist background (as I suspect you did as well?) but have reasoned that I lacked much common sense then.

Decades of Southern Baptist, with a little bit of Church of Christ thrown in.

I agree that it is silly to conlcude that pi = 3 from the Bible. But my question was, given that there are silly people on school boards who believe that pi = 3 on biblical grounds, why should they not be allowed to include their point of view in the math curriculum if creationists/intelligent design advocates are permitted to include their theory in the biology curriculum?

Trelow:

I think it comes down to our two different schools of thought. I gather that you believe that each subject should be taught independently of one another. I believe that each subject should be taught in relationship to one another.

The most important point in science class is that science can’t explain everything. The problem, from a pedagogical point of view, is that it only takes a few minutes to say that, and then you have to move on to the actual subject matter.

If you stop to examine how non-scientific theories can be compared and contrasted with scientifically-testable theories, then you’ve pretty much turned the class into a philosophy class. What about the theory that says that everything you perceive is really a dream, and there is no actual universe at all? There’s no way to disprove this, but what more can you say about it.

The scientific method is very powerful within its domain, and is a worthy field of study in its own right. At least that’s my view. I respect your right to see things differently.

Trelow:

Peace brother.

Peace.

 

[gilliam]

Which still leaves us with Darwin’s theory a theory and Intellegent Design a theory.

 

[Catholic2003]

gilliam:

Which still leaves us with Darwin’s theory a theory and Intellegent Design a theory.

Except that evolution is a scientific theory, while Intelligent Design is a non-scientific theory. Either could be right, but only one belongs in science class.

 

[gilliam]

Catholic2003:

Except that evolution is a scientific theory, while Intelligent Design is a non-scientific theory. Either could be right, but only one belongs in science class.

That statement is a theological one, not a scientific one.

To state a scientific theory and to show some evidence for it, is science. To say not to categorize something as a theory because of some believe system is theology, not science.

 

[Catholic2003]

gilliam:

That statement is a theological one, not a scientific one.

To state a scientific theory and to show some evidence for it, is science. To say not to categorize something as a theory because of some believe system is theology, not science.

This is exactly why good science teaching is so important.

The determination of what constitutes a scientific theory is based solely on whether or not the scientific method can be applied. That is, does the theory make testable predictions that can be verified or falsified experimentally. If the theory makes such predictions, it is a scientific theory. If the theory makes no such testable predictions, it is not within the realm of science.

Newton’s theory of gravity is a scientific theory, as is Einstein’s. Aristotle’s claim that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects is also a scientific theory, albeit one that has been falsified by Galileo’s experimentation.

Evolution makes significant and widespread predictions that are put to the test every day. (The Talk.Origins link has pages and pages of them.) Intelligent design makes no such testable predictions. To quote the AAAS, “the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims.”

Determining whether something lies within the realm of science involves no theology, only an evaluation with respect to the requirements of the scientific method.

 

[gilliam]

Catholic2003:

This is exactly why good science teaching is so important.

The determination of what constitutes a scientific theory is based solely on whether or not the scientific method can be applied. That is, does the theory make testable predictions that can be verified or falsified experimentally. If the theory makes such predictions, it is a scientific theory. If the theory makes no such testable predictions, it is not within the realm of science.

Newton’s theory of gravity is a scientific theory, as is Einstein’s. Aristotle’s claim that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects is also a scientific theory, albeit one that has been falsified by Galileo’s experimentation.

Evolution makes significant and widespread predictions that are put to the test every day. (The Talk.Origins link has pages and pages of them.) Intelligent design makes no such testable predictions. To quote the AAAS, “the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims.”

Determining whether something lies within the realm of science involves no theology, only an evaluation with respect to the requirements of the scientific method.

The scientific theory can be applied as much to evolution as it can to intellegent design. I am sorry you don’t believe in an intellegent creator, but that is irrelavent.