Catholic Traditon vs Science - are we looking deep enough

[drpmjhess]

I like it.
Yes, indeed Seneca Lake is landlocked.

So who on earth is proposing grants to study whales in Seneca Lake? Or is this a spoof?

And I for one am quite in favor of teaching philosophy in public schools. To my great delight, my kids have been asking philosophical, specifically metaphysical, questions since they could first talk. I think it’s a (moral) crime to stifle such thought. At the very least, comparative religion should be offered in public schools, if only for developing cultural literacy.

Petrus

 

[reggieM]

I read about that too, and just because their previous idea was wrong about peacock’s feathers doesn’t mean creationism is right…

I think you’re missing or changing the point here. I’m questioning your claim that there are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory.

You now affirm that “their previous idea was wrong”. This is an obvious weakness. They predicted, claimed and taught one thing – and then were later proven wrong.

It’s quite simple. The fact that this was proven wrong is a weakness in the theory of evolution.

You appear to be saying that it doesn’t matter how many times evolutionary “guesses” are proven wrong, that there is no sign of a weakness in the idea.

But this doesn’t follow. A very large number of studies are conducted trying to prove evolution simply because there are so many weaknesses.

In some cases, scientific predictions, supposedly based on firm grounding of evolutionary theory, are proven wrong.

Would I want to build a spacecraft on a scientifc theory like that? One that could be wrong and not predict the correct outcome?

Obviously not. Again, the point here is that when asked if you found any weakenesses at all in evolutionary theory, you replied “no”.

I still find that very hard to believe.

The peacock example still fits firmly within the context of evolutionary theory, it just occurred due to other factors than what they had thought.

That’s applying an a priori assumption – that evolution produced it even though we have no evidence of that and the prediction that was made was proven wrong.

Again, I find that a major weakness in the process itself – to assume the conclusion before the beginning.

We don’t have to explicitly define how every transition of every evolution of a species that has happened for evolutionary theory to be understood or verified.

True, but when predictions are proven false, then we do have to explain why. With gravity, if I predict that a rock will fall off of a cliff and move down it, but the rock floats of into space instead – it’s not sufficient to say that my theory of gravity “works most of the time”.

You can keep focusing on the small number of exceptions to the rule, and I will continue to focus on the vast number of examples that fit within the context of the rule

That’s fine, but I think you should reconsider your belief that there are “no weakenesses in evolutionary theory”.

The exceptions to the rule are weaknesses – even though you might consider them small. That’s different than saying that there are none.

 

[BiblicalDavid]

The original founders of our country did not have any problem mentioning God. I can and have a right to , in spite of the rather fierce and militant opposition, expect my government to fund researchers that may hold the idea of God being the master architect because it is an idea. We are free to express our ideas per the constitution and are not required to go off to our little recesses and caves every time someone says, “Run along now, you have an inappropriate point of view based on the ignorance of religion”. The truth is, these types of secular movements have become a kind of religion unto themselves.

With all of the garbage I went through in public schools growing up as well as all of the garbage that children go through today, I fully understand the motivation to pay extra money to educate them within a private institution. Sending children to private schools is quite sensible for a number of other reasons.

The dark side of not providing some kind of resistance, whether it be here or the secular forum, is that Nazism could happen again and in some ways is happening again through deliberate natural selection and a mandate of what you can and can not think. If you are not part of the ideas of the main stream scientific community, get out and find your own island in the pacific somewhere. If you are not smart enough and wealthy enough, abort your children and improve the gene pool… here’s a condum, don’t do it again.

-I can expect the secular society to respond to the common good
-I can expect the secular society to act fairly when dealing with ideas and phylisophical debate both in the sciences and other.
-I can expect the secular society to spend its taxation appropriately

I have low expectations that they will but I certainly can expect these things based on my freedoms here in the US.

 

[drpmjhess]

-I can expect the secular society to respond to the common good
-I can expect the secular society to act fairly when dealing with ideas and phylisophical debate both in the sciences and other.
-I can expect the secular society to spend its taxation appropriately

David, I want to learn how to read horoscopes and how to transmute lead into gold. Do I have a right to expect secular society to offer classes in astrology through the astronomy department at my local state university? Or alchemy classes through the chemistry department? If not, why not? If the secular world refuses to accommodate me, can I interpret this as creeping Naziism?

Petrus

 

[reggieM]

David, I want to learn how to read horoscopes and how to transmute lead into gold … astrology … alchemy …

Strange examples to offer in comparison with a belief in God.

Perhaps you think religious faith is as rare and bizarre as alchemy, or perhaps as fanciful as reading horoscopes.

The original post refered to the American founding fathers referencing a belief in God (in the Bill of Rights for one place) and his creative power as “self-evident”.

Apparently, you find this as baffling as if they had referenced astrology.

I know the standard secularist-left response so there’s no need to give this: “The American founding Fathers also supported slavery, but fortunately we outlawed that (and we should do the same with religion).”

So again, you make the philosophical position that affirms a divine being sound like it’s absurd and foolish - like it’s something we should be ashamed of speaking about.

 

[BiblicalDavid]

Everyone wants to transmute lead into gold. I agree, I am not sure why that class is not offered…

Looks like the University of Minnesota offers courses in Religious Studies and is a secular institution. Looks like some sort of creeping religious fundamentalism for the common good. Actually some of the career paths for this curriculum will obviously benefit mankind.They have also been know to offer some fringe courses in Wicca and other funky faiths… not sure if they still do but I am certain the group is alive and well on campus. I’ve met at least a couple witches from their ranks.

I do not expect accommodation any more than Martin Luther King expected everyone to agree with his point of view. And the secular world reeled in horrific opposition to him for his ideas.

I find clear ideological blood trails to the ideas of Darwin to Nazi cleansing of the gene pool. A twisted trail but clear just the same. I am personally not seeing your spin but you can express your view all you want to. Some of these things are expressed in the needs and wishes of the masses. If a university thought it could fill a classroom for alchemy studies they would do it in a heartbeat. Certainly every disagreement of ideas is not a caldron of creeping Nazism…the systematic and premeditated effort to interfere with right to life and other issues similar are clear trails to Nazism.

With every debate there is a disposition of severity.

If you want to run back yard chemistry classes, have atter or propose some kind of astrology course that goes beyond “Homers Iliad” have fun, enjoy. I read it and studied it in high school (I don’t believe in any of it but it is an interesting story) I don’t see the link as proposed any more than I would see the correction of a school teacher correcting one of her students for talking in class.

Let me know if you crack the secret of the lead to gold thing. Then we will both have unlimited time to banter ideas on the internet… my time is up.

Overall I don’t really get your point.

 

[BiblicalDavid]

“The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause that we believe to be just.”
Abraham Lincoln.

This quote applies to so many of these discussions. It may even be futile to expect secular institutions to support anything related to God or even His mere mention. Many seem animate about sending the Ten Commandments frizbeeing out the front door and stamping out the last basteon of God in every secular institution. Yet I believe my cause to be just and to challenge the injustice of some of the things presented in the “Expelled” movie. I think it is a breath of fresh air as compared to the secular autobots point of view we have been hearing from the more liberal sectors of the population. The movie, for me, is a welcome and long awaited public frontal attack.

It certainly ought to be self evident, as mentioned, in the United States based on the articles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence but I find here the fragility of the republic. Will some of these washed out secular left ideas win in the end? It is my duty to make some effort to make sure that they do not. Or, as also stated by Abraham Lincoln:

“A house divided will not stand”

I believe my efforts and words to be just and truthful. I don’t believe I have to go hide in a private school to express my ideas and influence what is done with my tax dollars. I might fail but I am sure as heck not going to back down in the fight.

Remember that the belief in God that you so desperate want to irradicate from our institutions was held in strong faith by the people who created and maintained your current freedom and you are living in the benefit of their sacrifice. The list of members is too large to present here, but they paid their own blood for our freedoms.

 

[drpmjhess]

Strange examples to offer in comparison with a belief in God. Perhaps you think religious faith is as rare and bizarre as alchemy, or perhaps as fanciful as reading horoscopes…

Not at all strange: I am comparing courses in astrology to courses in Intelligent Design biology. If one can legitimately be funded and taught in a public institution, both can.

 

[drpmjhess]

Everyone wants to transmute lead into gold. I agree, I am not sure why that class is not offered…

Overall I don’t really get your point.

It’s a simple point, not rocket science. You claim that as a tax-paying supporter of public education you have a right to know that your taxes are being spent appropriately. I say that if you want an Intelligent Design biology course to be taught using government money, afficionados of other cult projects – such as astrology and alchemy – have the right to have those courses taught as well, using public money.

 

[buffalo]

Not at all strange: I am comparing courses in astrology to courses in Intelligent Design biology. If one can legitimately be funded and taught in a public institution, both can.

Fine, fund them both. If one is left standing then great! Scientists by nature are curious, aren’t they?

 

[mmortal03]

I think you’re missing or changing the point here. I’m questioning your claim that there are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory.

No I’m not, because this example of yours doesn’t fall under what is considered evolutionary theory. You are trying to make it seem as if a specific case of scientific hypothesis makes a difference regarding the underlying theory, but it doesn’t. Both possibilities fit snugly within the confines of the theory of evolution.

You now affirm that “their previous idea was wrong”. This is an obvious weakness. They predicted, claimed and taught one thing – and then were later proven wrong.

No one “taught” anything about this as definitive, and any claims that they made about this specific instance were tentative. It does nothing to overturn the the underlying theory, it just is something different from what they expected about this particular species. Whatever happened with this species still falls under the guise of the theory of evolution. Nothing there changes that.

It’s quite simple. The fact that this was proven wrong is a weakness in the theory of evolution.

No, it isn’t. You are attributing the fact that something was “proven wrong” to the theory of evolution, when it shouldn’t be attributed to that.

You appear to be saying that it doesn’t matter how many times evolutionary “guesses” are proven wrong, that there is no sign of a weakness in the idea.

The theory of evolution is not a mathematical equation with 100% predictive power, where there is one solution. There are a range of possible solutions that all fit within its constraints. They aren’t moving the goal posts or something like that.

But this doesn’t follow. A very large number of studies are conducted trying to prove evolution simply because there are so many weaknesses.

Wrong. The whole point of of those studies is to further strengthen their predictive power, not because the theory has “weaknesses”. Science doesn’t stop testing things just because something is a good theory. They are always skeptical, and continue to test the theories in new scenarios. You are moving the goal posts by saying that the theory of evolution is “weak” and needs testing, because the stronger the theory gets, you will just use smaller and smaller examples to show that it still has “weaknesses”. They continue to find evidence to bolster their hypotheses, and when they find contradictory evidence, they study this as well. There is no conspiracy where science is somehow ignoring seemingly contradictory evidence.

In some cases, scientific predictions, supposedly based on firm grounding of evolutionary theory, are proven wrong.

The whole point of science is to make hypotheses and then test them. If they could 100% predict everything that occurred on this planet, we wouldn’t need scientific testing anymore. This doesn’t mean that the theory of evolution is somehow weak.

Would I want to build a spacecraft on a scientifc theory like that? One that could be wrong and not predict the correct outcome?

This is just a really bad analogy. The problem of building a spacecraft has significantly less complexity than the problem of predicting evolution with 100% accuracy.

 

[mmortal03]

Obviously not. Again, the point here is that when asked if you found any weakenesses at all in evolutionary theory, you replied “no”.

This is a lame and tired argument, especially coming from someone who, in his own supposedly logically consistent mind, has faith without evidence about so many things he has been taught to have occurred because the Catholic Church says so.

Here’s an analogy to help you understand the ridiculous point you are trying to get me to relinquish: A factory produces a product on the assembly line. One part out of every 100 million has a flaw that is missed and makes it all the way to the consumer. The consumer sees this flaw and claims that the entire manufacturing process has a “weakness”, because his individual product didn’t work properly, even though the manufacturing process is extremely robust and the best one on the planet.

That’s applying an a priori assumption – that evolution produced it even though we have no evidence of that and the prediction that was made was proven wrong.

Again, I find that a major weakness in the process itself – to assume the conclusion before the beginning.

You have got to be kidding me. Yes, in this case the scientists’ hypothesis was wrong. However, for the vast majority of cases involving the evolution of animals on this planet, they have been right. You don’t go back to square one every time you find one specific case involving an animal’s evolution that doesn’t fit your particular hypothesis. Yes, you can’t definitively claim that something else didn’t occur, but the overwhelming body of evidence directs them to where they should start to look for alternative hypotheses (which would all still fall under the theory of evolution).

True, but when predictions are proven false, then we do have to explain why. With gravity, if I predict that a rock will fall off of a cliff and move down it, but the rock floats of into space instead – it’s not sufficient to say that my theory of gravity “works most of the time”.

Exactly, and this is why they continue to do science.

The exceptions to the rule are weaknesses – even though you might consider them small. That’s different than saying that there are none.

This is a child’s argument you are making. I will concede that there is a small probability that the theory of evolution is completely wrong, just as I will concede that there is a small probability that a god exists, or that fairies or unicorns exist. If you want to call those small probabilities “weaknesses” to bolster your ego, be my guest, but you are grasping at straws if that is the best you have got. The minutia and word plays that evolution deniers like you will go to to win your superficial logical “victories” is indicative only of your desperate need to fight off that cognitive dissonance in your heads. It just isn’t worth it arguing with you on the same trivial nonsense over and over again.

Evolution is only a theory

…has just never been a worthwhile argument.

 

[richardwy]

I’m with Saint Thomas: inerrant revealed truth versus fallible human reason. Add in that we reason imperfectly.

Why the all go weak in the knees when it comes to “science?”

Repetition I guess.

 

[mmortal03]

I just have to post the latest news: “Tests Confirm T. Rex Kinship With Birds” nytimes.com/2008/04/25/science/25dino.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

[drpmjhess]

I’m with Saint Thomas: inerrant revealed truth versus fallible human reason. Add in that we reason imperfectly. Why the all go weak in the knees when it comes to “science?” Repetition I guess.

Who goes weak in the knees? I think Saint Thomas would have welcomed the theory of evolution, as did numerous Catholic theologians in the late nineteenth century.

Petrus

 

[juliamajor]

Bring Back Alchemy!! I got plenty of base metal just waiting to become gold.

 

[BiblicalDavid]

Who goes weak in the knees? I think Saint Thomas would have welcomed the theory of evolution, as did numerous Catholic theologians in the late nineteenth century.

Petrus

Excellent remarks. I am not against Darwinist ideas. Anyone can see that there is a possibility that some of these things occur. Look at the transition of the dog or the cat for instance. I honesty don’t believe in a purely literal interpretation of the Bible and the flood theory.

I do think God propels the engine and that people should not be ostracized for believing so.

I always find it interesting that my comments draw so much attention from my polar opposites. Having made only a few statements here and there I have managed to get their diapers in a binder… representative of the hypocracy that they abide in. They live in the benefit of Christianity and a government instituted by very Christian and God centered men. Yet they want the country to pander to every fire worshiper, ant farm cult, and satanic cult for their own sense of civil liberty. If this government ever does come down. It will be because of you.

My very simple point is that the government and its institutions have accomodated some of this civil liberty garbage. And look what has happened. The Christians exodus from the public schools for home schooling and private… Public schools left for the Goth and Devil worshipers who bring down the house with murder and gun fire. Look at the rash of school shootings… not a one in a Christian based private school. You may be getting what you want but look at the mess. It will not be getting any better any time soon.

 

[mmortal03]

I always find it interesting that my comments draw so much attention from my polar opposites. Having made only a few statements here and there I have managed to get their diapers in a binder… representative of the hypocracy that they abide in.

Who are you talking about? drpmjhess has been the only one replying to you, and he is nowhere near your polar opposite. He is Catholic, just as you are.

They live in the benefit of Christianity and a government instituted by very Christian and God centered men. Yet they want the country to pander to every fire worshiper, ant farm cult, and satanic cult for their own sense of civil liberty. If this government ever does come down. It will be because of you.

Again, who are you talking about here? What context brought these words out of you? You talk as if only Christians should have the liberty to practice their religion. I will tell you that freedom doesn’t work in just the way YOU want it to.

My very simple point is that the government and its institutions have accomodated some of this civil liberty garbage. And look what has happened. The Christians exodus from the public schools for home schooling and private… Public schools left for the Goth and Devil worshipers who bring down the house with murder and gun fire. Look at the rash of school shootings… not a one in a Christian based private school. You may be getting what you want but look at the mess. It will not be getting any better any time soon.

BiblicalDavid, you should really get out there in the world and meet some of the nice people that aren’t Christians. Maybe that would change your seemingly closed-minded views. You are the one coming across as a hypocrite, because, fyi, the concepts of Christianity and the ideas of civil liberties can get along just fine together. Your conceptions of how our country’s ideals work are turned around. It is the protection of your civil liberties that allows you to practice Catholicism, and not the other way around.

And your accusations regarding school shootings directed toward… I don’t even know who (non-Christians, secularism, or even atheism, possibly?), seem to imply that somehow those under the title of Christianity have no blood on their hands for any wrongs that occur here.

People do bad things, sir. Christians do them, and non-Christians do them.

 

[BiblicalDavid]

drpmjhess a Catholic? LOL. When? He’s been nothing but an self professed genius from the get go.

I stand by my reasoning for the school shootings. They are a fundamental spinout from the culture of death lack of Christianity. I am well awaire that Christians do bad things also. There is a whole hodge podge of people from sinner to saint. I’m sure we are both in the middle somewhere.

These are just assessments of my views. I don’t think that driving out school prayer and God from public schools has done any good. From a Catholic standpoint the mere praise of the Holy Name blesses the place that it is said and makes it Holy Ground. It also offers a certain level of spiritual protection which the blind secular society has driven out…

I don’t think I’m that closed minded. I think it is safe to say that we don’t agree in spite of our common Catholic faith…

Well, running a little of the topic anyway. I think your right. I will be getting back to normal life rather than spend it with a bunch of corny people who have nothing better to do than jabber about politics, evolution, and christianity. No one ever agrees much in these places anyway.

 

[drpmjhess]

Bring Back Alchemy!! I got plenty of base metal just waiting to become gold.

I know – I’ve got a lot of leaden fishing sinkers; I can hardly wait to take an alchemy class at my local community college, and then I’ll be rich. But Alchemy 185 is the third class in a series, following Astrology 140, and I’m still struggling to pass Creation Science 101.