Conference on Evolution

[buffalo]

You have your truth and lots of other people have different truths. Why should your truth be taught in science classrooms and not other truths?

Through reason and Revelation we can know truth. Wouldn’t it make sense to teach it?

 

[grannymh]

Through reason and Revelation we can know truth. Wouldn’t it make sense to teach it?

How about looking at science/truth this way? When science teaches about the amoeba, truth about human beings would not be involved. When science teaches evolutionary theory which includes human beings, truth about human beings would definitely be involved.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

 

[buffalo]

How about looking at science/truth this way? When science teaches about the amoeba, truth about human beings would not be involved. When science teaches evolutionary theory which includes human beings, truth about human beings would definitely be involved.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

I could not separate it that way. All these things are subset to the total truth.

Empirical science can say nothing about human origins without crossing into philosophy.

 

[edwest2]

If creationism is taught as an alternative to science then the whole of US science education would be potentially degraded to a level that is unacceptable. The rest of the developed world will progress without such a violation of science.

Not the end of the world. That’s ridiculous hyperbole. Science education must remain science, not religion. Our children deserve better than bad science.

Do the religion somewhere other than in science classes. Doesn’t that make sense to you?

“potentially degraded”? I don’t think so. Here’s why based on my past experience in health care, my own research and my knowledge of the desire of some to keep God out of all public buildings. Current genetic research deals with currently living things. Period. Bacteria and viruses can mutate but never become anything other than bacteria or viruses. This is a built-in capability. There is also clear evidence that bacteria found in dirt already have resistance to natural and synthetic antibiotics. This deflates part of the exposure-mutation scenario. I mean, if human beings could engage in lateral gene transfer, things would be a little easier for us.

That having been said, I’m not advocating forcing anything into science classrooms. However, I find it worthwhile to point out that evolution, as described here, has no apparent bearing on current biology. Sequencing the human genome involves the present. Killing human embryos involves the present. Gene sequencing other organisms involves the present.

I find the quick, pointed defense of Darwin and evolution in general, here as a clear indication that an ideology, an anti-God ideology, is first in importance. Science is a distant second and is clearly tied to promoting that ideology.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

I could not separate it that way. All these things are subset to the total truth.

Empirical science can say nothing about human origins without crossing into philosophy.

O.K. But, I wonder how much “empirical science” is actually in the evolutionary theory of human beings. There is a lot regarding genomes, DNA, etc. But I think there are a lot of analytical questions that are not answered.

 

[buffalo]

O.K. But, I wonder how much “empirical science” is actually in the evolutionary theory of human beings. There is a lot regarding genomes, DNA, etc. But I think there are a lot of analytical questions that are not answered.

There isn’t much that meets the test of observable, repeatable and predictable.

 

[Namesake]

Through reason and Revelation we can know truth. Wouldn’t it make sense to teach it?

Even though this is a Catholic site there must be recognition that there are many other religions and philosophies that the followers consider to be as true as yours. Maybe you don’t accept that, but if you do then could you please tell me which of those various truths should be taught?

Perhaps you believe that only Catholic truths should be taught. If so you are caught in a trap, and I bet you know that.

 

[grannymh]

There isn’t much that meets the test of observable, repeatable and predictable.

I’m thinking more like the “why” questions. For example, I’ve read that humans have similar genomic patterns with a number of creatures, with monkeys at the top of the list. This would make sense because of the unity of creation seen in the first living cells.It seems to me that the building blocks or stuff which comes together to form cells would not be confined to one area on our very large planet.

So why is it assumed that humans evolved from apes as a common ancestor? Why couldn’t the divergence taken place close to the very beginning of life?

 

[buffalo]

Even though this is a Catholic site there must be recognition that there are many other religions and philosophies that the followers consider to be as true as yours. Maybe you don’t accept that, but if you do then could you please tell me which of those various truths should be taught?

Perhaps you believe that only Catholic truths should be taught. If so you are caught in a trap, and I bet you know that.

As we understand and know foundational truths these are then built upon, leading us to the “fullness of truth”. This is elementary.

 

[grannymh]

Even though this is a Catholic site there must be recognition that there are many other religions and philosophies that the followers consider to be as true as yours. Maybe you don’t accept that, but if you do then could you please tell me which of those various truths should be taught?

Perhaps you believe that only Catholic truths should be taught. If so you are caught in a trap, and I bet you know that.

I don’t think all Catholic or any religion’s truths are being suggested. There are some universal, basic truths or principles which are true for everyone regardless of religion.

Regarding human beings. All human life is sacred would be a basic, fundamental principle. Honesty is a necessary value for all humanity would be another one.

 

[Namesake]

“potentially degraded”? I don’t think so. Here’s why based on my past experience in health care, my own research and my knowledge of the desire of some to keep God out of all public buildings. Current genetic research deals with currently living things. Period. Bacteria and viruses can mutate but never become anything other than bacteria or viruses. This is a built-in capability. There is also clear evidence that bacteria found in dirt already have resistance to natural and synthetic antibiotics. This deflates part of the exposure-mutation scenario. I mean, if human beings could engage in lateral gene transfer, things would be a little easier for us.

That having been said, I’m not advocating forcing anything into science classrooms. However, I find it worthwhile to point out that evolution, as described here, has no apparent bearing on current biology. Sequencing the human genome involves the present. Killing human embryos involves the present. Gene sequencing other organisms involves the present.

I find the quick, pointed defense of Darwin and evolution in general, here as a clear indication that an ideology, an anti-God ideology, is first in importance. Science is a distant second and is clearly tied to promoting that ideology.

Peace,
Ed

You are wrong. Evolution theory is biology. Your ideas about God aren’t biology. Do you see the difference?

 

[buffalo]

I’m thinking more like the “why” questions. For example, I’ve read that humans have similar genomic patterns with a number of creatures, with monkeys at the top of the list. This would make sense because of the unity of creation seen in the first living cells.It seems to me that the building blocks or stuff which comes together to form cells would not be confined to one area on our very large planet.

So why is it assumed that humans evolved from apes as a common ancestor? Why couldn’t the divergence taken place close to the very beginning of life?

You have hit upon it. One view will not tolerate the Divine, so it is rejected a priori. That means that every observation has to fit the worldview. This worldview has been entrenched to the point where researchers that are outside cannot get funded. So why are we surprised that all the “evidence” seems to support itself. It is self perpetuating.

God created the language of life (DNA). He creates the kinds to get started. Adaptation and natural selection allow for speciation. I like it. Since He used the “building blocks of life” we should have some commonality.

 

[Namesake]

As we understand and know foundational truths these are then built upon, leading us to the “fullness of truth”. This is elementary.

That’s either religion or philosophy, but it has nothing to do with science.

 

[Namesake]

You have hit upon it. One view will not tolerate the Divine, so it is rejected a priori. That means that every observation has to fit the worldview. This worldview has been entrenched to the point where researchers that are outside cannot get funded. So why are we surprised that all the “evidence” seems to support itself. It is self perpetuating.

God created the language of life (DNA). He creates the kinds to get started. Adaptation and natural selection allow for speciation. I like it. Since He used the “building blocks of life” we should have some commonality.

You can believe that without argument from most anyone. However, science is very limited and cannot go where you want to go. Religion or philosophy is just fine in it’s place. Just don’t ask more of it than can be delivered.

 

[buffalo]

That’s either religion or philosophy, but it has nothing to do with science.

No - we know true things. Man came come to know God through reason alone. Just because you do not allow the outcome doesn’t mean it is false.

 

[Namesake]

No - we know true things. Man came come to know God through reason alone. Just because you do not allow the outcome doesn’t mean it is false.

It’s has nothing whatsoever to with what I will allow. It has to do with varying ideas.

 

[grannymh]

That’s either religion or philosophy, but it has nothing to do with science.

Let’s look at science from an economic viewpoint. Consider the amount of scientific research dollars that are focused on disease. Why? Because, essentially, human life is sacred which is a philosophical position. Of course, you could answer human life is valuable because it has money in its pockets. No matter. One could interpret how human life is valuable a hundred ways, but at the end of the day, the philosophical foundation is still human life is sacred and science is protecting it.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of care.

 

[Namesake]

human life is valuable a hundred ways, but at the end of the day, the philosophical foundation is still human life is sacred and science is protecting it.

Science doesn’t necessarily protect human life because it is sacred. It’s our duty to protect human life just for the sake of protecting human life, nothing more. That’s how science works, nothing supernatural. It isn’t wrong to believe in the supernatural but science cannot go there. People might wish that science could figure in a sacred meaning and that is quite noble, but it just doesn’t enter into the scientific realm.

That doesn’t reduce the importance of religion in any way. All it does is limit science to the natural world. Why is that a problem for some people? You can still have any supernatural ideas that make sense to you but science must remain separate from those ideas. If you think about it very critically you should be able to understand that that is the best of all possible situations.

Let science be science and let religion be religion. The two do not have to overlap at all. Science doesn’t address religion and religion doesn’t try to be science.

 

[edwest2]

Science doesn’t necessarily protect human life because it is sacred. It’s our duty to protect human life just for the sake of protecting human life, nothing more. That’s how science works, nothing supernatural. It isn’t wrong to believe in the supernatural but science cannot go there. People might wish that science could figure in a sacred meaning and that is quite noble, but it just doesn’t enter into the scientific realm.

That doesn’t reduce the importance of religion in any way. All it does is limit science to the natural world. Why is that a problem for some people? You can still have any supernatural ideas that make sense to you but science must remain separate from those ideas. If you think about it very critically you should be able to understand that that is the best of all possible situations.

Let science be science and let religion be religion. The two do not have to overlap at all. Science doesn’t address religion and religion doesn’t try to be science.

That’s pure nonsense and you know it. Why does Richard Dawkins spend so much time denying God and His work based on science? And if it’s not based on science, then what is it based on? Why did he write a book telling parents how to raise their children without God?

The laboratory is not some “philosophy free zone.” Anyone who walks in and does ‘science’ is affected by what they find. Look at Mr. Dawkins. He’s certainly been affected, along with all those who follow him. The rationalists, the reductionists, the anarchists and free thinkers. They all need to fill their minds and free time with something. So what do we have? A lot of web sites that denounce religion based on science and what they call reason. There is such a thing as Behavioral Science, but, according to journals like Evolutionary Psychology, you’re just a biological robot programmed by your genes whose primary purpose is reproduction, performing adaptive behaviors and dying. The connection between science, as described here, and atheism-materialism-nihilism is direct and explicit.

And you can ask The Barbarian about his favorite quote from the Pope about that theory he likes so much.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Science doesn’t necessarily protect human life because it is sacred. It’s our duty to protect human life just for the sake of protecting human life, nothing more. That’s how science works, nothing supernatural. It isn’t wrong to believe in the supernatural but science cannot go there. People might wish that science could figure in a sacred meaning and that is quite noble, but it just doesn’t enter into the scientific realm.

That doesn’t reduce the importance of religion in any way. All it does is limit science to the natural world. Why is that a problem for some people? You can still have any supernatural ideas that make sense to you but science must remain separate from those ideas. If you think about it very critically you should be able to understand that that is the best of all possible situations.

Let science be science and let religion be religion. The two do not have to overlap at all. Science doesn’t address religion and religion doesn’t try to be science.

They are not mutually exclusive. They are interelated. To separate them so, is a mistake. Any empirically found truth is part of absolute truth. For many years I believed in your position. I don’t see it viable anymore. It was just a position to appease the public school concept of keeping God out. It was court ruled because of a minority of unbelievers.

Since God is truth, then we must teach truth.