American Federation of Teachers Statement on President Bush’s Comments on Intelligent

[Brad]

Peter Wright:

The difference between education and indoctrination is the purpose of education is to give people information and teach the how to think through it. The purpose of indoctrination is to give people information and tell them what to think about it. Public schools do not educate our kids, they indoctrinate them. If they were truely interested in education, they would give them all possible theories on universal genesis and allow the kids to think through them and come to their own conclussions.

Amen Peter.

Here is the concluding paragraph of one of the most prominent Darwinists(Richard Dawkins) in an article in the most recent issue(November, 2005) of “Natural History”:

“In any developing science there are disagreements. But scientists-and here is what separates real scientists from the pseudoscientists of the school of intellligent design-always know what evidence it would take to change their minds. One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity’s sake, let’s stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.”

Evolution is a fact because Dawkins says so and you are not a real scientist and are philosophically naive if you believe anything else. So there.

Indeed, another portion of the article questions the existence of a creator. And he talks about all kinds of evidence for evolution but provides none.

Indoctrination. But, thankfully, it looks like the indoctrinators are getting very testy and defensive.

 

[Brad]

QUOTE=Zerith]Duh, you know why? My school’s Catholic run, and this is the entire Catholic view throughout not just Ireland, but Europe. With few exceptions.

Zerith:

You are fortunate. There are many orders throughout Europe that would debate some of these truths.

Zerith:

Truth? Do you think that the truth of the Bible is compromised THAT easily?
.

Yes. It happens all the time.

Zerith:

No, there are no “Aspects” of evolution that ever contradict the truth of the Bible, only raise questions whether a PART of it is metaphorical, or what-not.
.

This is exactly what I am talking about. If something is taught as a metaphor when it is in fact historically true, then a non-truth is being taught.

Zerith:

Unless you’re weak in faith, you will not collapse under such theories,
.

Look around the world. Many weak in their faith. Including Catholics.

Zerith:

while, of course, on the opposite end of the scale, you have the “extremists” (Again, not in the “bad” way, but this is how all or most religious Americans are viewed) who just completely disagree with it, and refuse to listen to anything contrary to what they were taught.
.

I think you are mistaken. Many today refuse to believe what they have been taught (false teaching) and want to believe what they have not been taught (truth).

Zerith:

And God help us, if, in Ireland

, the Vincentian Order, over the last one hundred and sixty years (Ireland was very religious until 25-30 years ago, let alone one hundred! It still has strong Church - State relationships), turned out to be randomly teaching non-Catholic things - Think, next time, please, and don’t mis-quote me, add in the “Of course not”, next time.
.

God help us indeed. I didn’t know whether they did teach non-Catholic things or not. I do know that many orders do and all are susceptible.

Zerith:

Of course not. This does have relevence, showing how Genisis is more of a metaphor.
.

Case in point. Nobody has any proof whatsoever that the book of Genesis is a metaphor. It is an historical book. The flood, Sodom, the whole deal. You can debate the 6 day creation as being a longer period than we think of days but you cannot debate God’s supernatural work in the world or the historicity of Genesis.

Zerith:

While maths, (of course!) does not.
But many subjects are inter-twined. For example, in Geography, learning about plate tectonics, formation of the planet etc… But I do believe, there’s no need to prove the curvature of the Earth, or, do we?
.

And what benefit does knowing that we are cousins of apes provide us?

Zerith:

Well, I for one cannot say anything about a foreign country, like you did. For all I know, you’re taught otherwise, so do not jump to random conclusions about the Irish syllabi - Which, need I add, yet again, is very Catholic.
.

I didn’t jump to conclusions. That is why I asked questions.

Zerith:

Not when they’re forced to by the Priests who run the school, also the Vincentian Order, and of course, the Bishops and Arch Bishop. (Not to mention the State, which over the last… Several hundred years, up to even present days, still has strong (Enough) Church-State relations to keep religious education to the standards of what the Church states - Ireland, if you like, has been an extension of the Church into politics, nothing up until the 1970s went against the Church, and many of those policies are still implimented)

The Irish Catholics, being regarded as the most religious in the world by Pope John Paul II, are obviously not going to allow teachings that damage the religion, if it did damage the religion and its teachings, then Ireland would’ve been the bastion defending the faith against it, with little opposition. Trust me… If the state did something remotely against the Church, it would pay… For an example, there was the “Mother and Child Scheme” during the '60s, I think it was, whereby Mothers and Children recieved free healthcare, the Church percieved this as against the family, and therefore, the Health Minister who proposed it, was quickly ousted, and his career ended.
.

This is good but wasn’t their a movement towards accepting contraception and abortion?
I could be wrong but I thought I saw something on this.

Zerith:

I am not saying: “What you believe is wrong!1!”, rather, be realistic, this doesn’t disprove/damage the religion/teaching.

The devil is very coy. We have to be every watchful. Especially in terms of defending the Bible as truth.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Brad:

QUOTE=Zerith]Case in point. Nobody has any proof whatsoever that the book of Genesis is a metaphor. It is an historical book. The flood, Sodom, the whole deal. You can debate the 6 day creation as being a longer period than we think of days but you cannot debate God’s supernatural work in the world or the historicity of Genesis.

And what benefit does knowing that we are cousins of apes provide us?

The devil is very coy. We have to be every watchful. Especially in terms of defending the Bible as truth.

Why, pray tell, do you get to pick and choose what is literally true or not (the literal six-day creation vs. the literal formation directly from clay)?

The very first thing you read in Genesis is two creation accounts, one in which man and woman are made together, given dominion over the earth, and given every tree with seed bearing fruit on it for their food (Gen. 1:26-31), immediately followed by a second story in which man was made from clay before the shrubs had sprouted or the rain had fallen. In the second story, only after the man been was given a tree he couldn’t eat from and had been tending the Garden of Eden on his own with no suitable partner was a woman made from his rib.

How is this not evidence that the creation stories are metaphorical? How does the possibility that the creation stories are metaphorical change the possibility that other stories may be literal? What, if God uses a metaphorical sacred story to reveal Himself, He can’t have any after which are literal?

You asked, “What benefit does knowing that we are cousins of apes provide us?” I have to ask… in what way does it humble you more than you should be humbled? If it is true, why would you hide from knowing it? If breathing the Holy Spirit and the divine life into a hominid, the distant cousin of an ape, is what God meant by making man by breathing on clay, what is that to us? We are at the same time a part of his creation and stewards of it, of it and yet more than the rest of it…that is the main point. That monkeys and especially apes are our relatives means that they have particular relavance for scientific study. It means they may possibly experience things in ways similar to the way that we do, a possibility that we should be mindful of in order to avoid cruelty. Is that so awful to know? Isn’t it more awful to remain willfully ignorant of it?

In the super-real realm of spirituality–above all others because of all it alone is eternal–the truth is neither the observations you read from a scientific journal nor the inferences you draw from the Bible. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That is, truth is not what you get by reading the Bible, but what happens to you when you letting the Word get into you and live in you. Reading the Bible is necessary, but not sufficient. Jesus didn’t come to abolish Torah, but He did come to give notice that arguing endlessly about words on the page–even sacred words!–is not what is meant by living the truth.

 

[Brad]

BLB_Oregon:

Why, pray tell, do you get to pick and choose what is literally true or not (the literal six-day creation vs. the literal formation directly from clay)?

The very first thing you read in Genesis is two creation accounts, one in which man and woman are made together, given dominion over the earth, and given every tree with seed bearing fruit on it for their food (Gen. 1:26-31), immediately followed by a second story in which man was made from clay before the shrubs had sprouted or the rain had fallen. In the second story, only after the man been was given a tree he couldn’t eat from and had been tending the Garden of Eden on his own with no suitable partner was a woman made from his rib.

How is this not evidence that the creation stories are metaphorical? How does the possibility that the creation stories are metaphorical change the possibility that other stories may be literal? What, if God uses a metaphorical sacred story to reveal Himself, He can’t have any after which are literal?

Although I have some disagrement with you way of determining that the creation accounts are metaphorical, we can discuss that perhaps at another time. I don’t disagree with the point that you are making here.

BLB_Oregon:

You asked, “What benefit does knowing that we are cousins of apes provide us?” I have to ask… in what way does it humble you more than you should be humbled? If it is true, why would you hide from knowing it?

I wouldn’t hide from knowing it. Science has not proved it so I don’t need to hide. But this doesn’t answer my question as to why it is so important to know that children are mandated to be subjected to this theory as fact. What benefit does this provide them?

BLB_Oregon:

If breathing the Holy Spirit and the divine life into a hominid, the distant cousin of an ape, is what God meant by making man by breathing on clay, what is that to us?

Man was made clearly distinct from the other animals and was mad in His image and likeness. This would be a contradiction to this critical distinction.

BLB_Oregon:

We are at the same time a part of his creation and stewards of it, of it and yet more than the rest of it…that is the main point. That monkeys and especially apes are our relatives means that they have particular relavance for scientific study. It means they may possibly experience things in ways similar to the way that we do, a possibility that we should be mindful of in order to avoid cruelty.

We don’t kneed to know that apes are our ancestors to know that being cruel to animals is very wrong. They are creatures and we are creatures. They feel pain and we feel pain. Cruelty is never good and always bad, whether it is done to Grandpa or a neighbor from a different culture.

I would say we have the reverse problem. We are so conscious of not being cruel to animals that we forget that we should not be cruel to human beings.

BLB_Oregon:

Is that so awful to know? Isn’t it more awful to remain willfully ignorant of it?

No and no. See above.

BLB_Oregon:

In the super-real realm of spirituality–above all others because of all it alone is eternal–the truth is neither the observations you read from a scientific journal nor the inferences you draw from the Bible. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. That is, truth is not what you get by reading the Bible, but what happens to you when you letting the Word get into you and live in you. Reading the Bible is necessary, but not sufficient. Jesus didn’t come to abolish Torah, but He did come to give notice that arguing endlessly about words on the page–even sacred words!–is not what is meant by living the truth.

That is why we have the Church which is His body. Objective truth is that which the Church declares in matters of faith and morals. Objective truth can also be determined through science, math, and other areas of reason. Objective truth is not the result of someone’s subjective feelings about Jesus within Himself. It is following Him with our whole heart, mind, and soul, requiring obedience to His Word through Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Brad:

Science has not proved it so I don’t need to hide… But this doesn’t answer my question as to why it is so important to know that children are mandated to be subjected to this theory as fact. What benefit does this provide them?

A scientific theory is not a theory in the sense that the word is commonly used. A theory is like a verdict in a court trial, in which a standard of reasonableness has been met by the consensus of peers in one’s field. Yes, the jury is always out, but this is the process that intelligent design hasn’t even been through yet.

You teach the current thinking on the physical origins of humankind for the same reason it is being looked into in the first place… most people think it is important to know where we came from. There are those who think that there is not a sufficient “benefit” in teaching art and music, that these are merely condiments of the human experience. This robs our children of their intellectual heritage.

If you can only teach that which is entirely true without qualification, revealed truth is about all that you could teach, and even that carries the qualification that our minds are too small to comprehend the reality of God.

Brad:

Man was made clearly distinct from the other animals and was made in His image and likeness. This would be a contradiction to this critical distinction.

Our eternal dignity is axiomatic, yes. But evolution does not contradict the unique nature of the divine indwelling within us, and that is why the Church is not opposed to the theory of evolution. This is crucial…sharing ancestors with other animals no more makes us merely one of the animals than looking at the sun and not the Earth as the center of our solar system changes the astonishing reality of the Incarnation.

Brad:

We don’t need to know that apes are our ancestors to know that being cruel to animals is very wrong. They are creatures and we are creatures. They feel pain and we feel pain. Cruelty is never good and always bad, whether it is done to Grandpa or a neighbor from a different culture.

I would say we have the reverse problem. We are so conscious of not being cruel to animals that we forget that we should not be cruel to human beings.

There was a time when people from other cultures had cruelties and indignities perpetuated upon them not out of malice, but out of ignorance. What is not cruel to do to a snail might be cruel to do to a chimpanzee, something the ignorant would not realize.

You are right that it is possible to romanticize animals to such a degree that one fails to see the unique dignity of humans. One can draw from the theory of evolution a pretext for following a morality of “social Darwinism.” Neither is a necessary outcome of teaching evolution, though.

Oh, and by the way, no one in biology is proposing that we are descended from modern apes. We have a common ancestor, yes, but it is a long ways back! We are related to voles and bacteria, too, if you go back far enough.

Brad:

That is why we have the Church which is His body. Objective truth is that which the Church declares in matters of faith and morals. Objective truth can also be determined through science, math, and other areas of reason. Objective truth is not the result of someone’s subjective feelings about Jesus within Himself. It is following Him with our whole heart, mind, and soul, requiring obedience to His Word through Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium.

You make an important point. Feelings are not truth, and having an emotional attachment to an idea about God is not the same as having a living faith. But neither is a set of facts about God or even a set of rules that God commands us to follow a living faith. You learn the facts and the rules as a foundation upon which to build a life of service, love, and trust in God. But as in marriage, true “knowledge” in the Biblical sense is far more personal, far more demanding, and far more intimate than what we think of as “objective truth.” As I am sure you would agree, God may not be known as an object. We are too small and God is too great for us to even imagine the divine life in a merely intellectual sense. God must live in you. You don’t ever have the truth. It is the Truth that must gain possession of you.

 

[mlchance]

BLB_Oregon:

A scientific theory is not a theory in the sense that the word is commonly used. A theory is like a verdict in a court trial, in which a standard of reasonableness has been met by the consensus of peers in one’s field.

And if the consensus of one’s peers is wrong or (as in the case eminent folks like Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould) blinded by ideological committments?

ID is too complicated to be taught in most school courses. Contrary to constant assertions, genuine ID doesn’t immediately jump from detecting design to God. It instead attempts to use legitimate scientific tools used in other sciences (such as cryptography) to detect the presence of information systems that have the characteristics of being designed.

If such systems appear, the question of why then arises. The answer to this question could be supernatural; it could be natural. If it is the former, the disciplines of theology and philosophy come into play. If not, they do not.

The real, driving issue against ID isn’t often one of what constitutes science. It is one of politics, of scholars jockeying for position by protecting entrenched positions, and, also, of an influential minority of scientists using official organs to squash anything that dares to contradict materialism, which is necessarily atheistic.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

mlchance:

And if the consensus of one’s peers is wrong or (as in the case eminent folks like Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould) blinded by ideological committments?

ID is too complicated to be taught in most school courses. Contrary to constant assertions, genuine ID doesn’t immediately jump from detecting design to God. It instead attempts to use legitimate scientific tools used in other sciences (such as cryptography) to detect the presence of information systems that have the characteristics of being designed.

If such systems appear, the question of why then arises. The answer to this question could be supernatural; it could be natural. If it is the former, the disciplines of theology and philosophy come into play. If not, they do not.

The real, driving issue against ID isn’t often one of what constitutes science. It is one of politics, of scholars jockeying for position by protecting entrenched positions, and, also, of an influential minority of scientists using official organs to squash anything that dares to contradict materialism, which is necessarily atheistic.

– Mark L. Chance.

Intelligent design has ideological adherents of its own, let’s not forget. While that is unquestionably a factor on both sides–people are people–the fact that a scientific theory could be used for political ends is a poor reason to include or exclude it from the science curriculum.

From my point of view, intelligent design has an unfortunate name because it implies scientific exposition of the divine. While science abounds with evidence of a wonderous Creator, you cannot put divine wisdom to the test.

Having said that… I think that the hypothesis that living things are preorganized towards achievement of greater complexity or for evolution in specific directions is an interesting one. If this pre-organization is demonstrated, then obviously the theory of evolution has to be at the very least re-organized to accomodate that fact, much as Newtonian physics had to accomodate the realities of quantum physics. That doesn’t mean we throw out Newtonian physics or make some sort of competition out of it. You may spend 90% of your time on Newtonian physics because it is more accessible and practically useful than quantum physics, but you don’t leave quantum physics out of the curriculum entirely.

In 1905, though, quantum physics didn’t belong in the high school curriculum. Inclusion in the curriculum needs to wait until some supporting evidence has been assembled and defended. That hasn’t happened with intelligent design yet.

 

[mlchance]

BLB_Oregon:

…the fact that a scientific theory could be used for political ends is a poor reason to include or exclude it from the science curriculum.

Which, of course, completely undermines those very same objections when they are directed against ID.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

mlchance:

Which, of course, completely undermines those very same objections when they are directed against ID.



– Mark L. Chance.

Well, yes, that’s true… but that isn’t my objection to the inclusion of ID in the curriculum.

That there are bad reasons for excluding ID hardly means that there aren’t any good ones.