B
buffalo
Guest
Agreed. But if the raw data is incomplete or cannot be known a skewed analysis results.
- Status
N
Namesake
Guest
Incomplete is pretty much the way things always are. Data that cannot be known? That’s nonsense.
B
buffalo
Guest
You are claiming we can see other dimensions? You are claiming we can know all things seen and unseen?
R
redneck22
Guest
Looks like its a huge victory for those who favor teaching the scientific evidence for and against evolution. The NCSE are fuming over the vote when just the day before they were gloating over the tied vote for “strengths and weakness” language which was a drawn vote therefore defeated. Under the new standards, students will be expected to analyze and evaluate the scientific evidence for evolution, not religion.Important update on Texas: The State Board of Education yesterday preliminarily voted down an attempt to intrude Creationism II into science classrooms.
ncseweb.org/news/2009/03/strengths-weaknesses-nixed-texas-again-004700
There is a final vote on the matter today. At stake is the science education of millions of children not only in Texas, but also in other states where the creationist biology textbooks would have been assigned to teachers and distributed to their classes.
StAnastasia
N
Namesake
Guest
I’m sorry but you really don’t make sense at all. I can’t waste time on your nonsensical questions.
B
buffalo
Guest
I was answering your statement -" Data that cannot be known? That’s nonsense."
N
Namesake
Guest
OK then I will try to help you. There cannot be such a thing as data that cannot be known because the very existence of data implies that it is known. You could say that there is data that isn’t understood, but that is quite a different idea. Data is always known because it is created by people who therefore know the data.
This sort of conversation is a waste of time and electrons.
J
James_Edward
Guest
Hello, I’m new to the current conference on evolution. From the posts I see that, despite the continued absence of proof, the participants are predominantly theistic evolutionists. Their remarks suggest they apply a philosophical rather than a scientific approach to the subject. This is in line with what the Holy Father’s once said, evolution is a philosophy: not a science. The only really scientific posts were from Prof. Maciej Giertych a geneticist of repute. It was sad, therefore, to see those less qualified than he attempting to throw doubt upon his professional knowledge in biochemistry and genetics. Clearly, this was because the empirical evidence he offered based on laboratory research indicated the weakness of the proposed mechanism for evolution, thus showing evolutionary bias to be stronger than facts.
Giertych was one of a panel of Catholic scientists who spoke at a conference in Rome at the Sapienza University in November 2008. The conference was held because the Pontifical Academy of Sciences meeting in November and the Gregorian College meeting last March disallowed speakers not supporting evolution theory. To avoid bias and in common justice, scientific debates as a strict rule present the case for and against the motion. These two Catholic forums were the exception. No place was allowed for the opposing view. Abstracts of the speakers at the Sapienza University can be viewed at sites.google.com/site/scientificcritiqueofevolution
I was struck by the fact that a 2003 rebutted critique was used to refute Berthault’s peer reviewed experimental research. Its author, (who appears to be a participant on your thread) went so far as to use libellous accusations regarding the professionalism of the Academies of Science who published Berthault’s work. Fortunately for him that hasn’t yet been taken into account by the Academicians he was insulting, but memories can be long. If he were a professional sedimentologist (not a geologist!) he would have produced the only scientific argument worthy of scrutiny. This would be to refute the claim of the stratigraphic principles being invalid: not knock the experimenter and the scientific journals that publish him. Anybody can do this, and get the applause of those having a similar lack of specialised knowledge, and believe he is adding grist to their biased mill. His attempt to belittle the value of Berthault’s person and the laboratory experiments should have immediately alerted any true scientist to the questionable character of the critic. A simple experiment validating the stratigraphic principle of superposition, for instance, would do the trick. Instead, he distracts attention by a series of questions and affirmations which those less knowledgeable assume proves the experimental results are wrong. Of course, it does nothing of the sort. Additionally, he insinuates religious and creationist motives to the experimenter, in a further attempt to discredit the experiments. One statement in his critique which holds water, however, is “…if Berthault were correct, he would be the greatest geologist of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries”: it would also mean the total removal of any support data for evolution theory. Let it be clear, despite the misleading statements in Alec MacAndrew’s web critique, Berthault’s work makes no reference to a young earth or religion. He is a Catholic, but not a creationist. He has said this many times but his critics feel that by saying the opposite they will reduce his credibility, and in some distorted way the implication of his experiments. Finally, his experimental results are empirical, observable and can be repeated in any properly equipped hydraulics laboratory. They are self-demonstrating and evident to any student. They certainly don’t depend on Berthault’s interpretation or anyone else’s.
Giertych was one of a panel of Catholic scientists who spoke at a conference in Rome at the Sapienza University in November 2008. The conference was held because the Pontifical Academy of Sciences meeting in November and the Gregorian College meeting last March disallowed speakers not supporting evolution theory. To avoid bias and in common justice, scientific debates as a strict rule present the case for and against the motion. These two Catholic forums were the exception. No place was allowed for the opposing view. Abstracts of the speakers at the Sapienza University can be viewed at sites.google.com/site/scientificcritiqueofevolution
I was struck by the fact that a 2003 rebutted critique was used to refute Berthault’s peer reviewed experimental research. Its author, (who appears to be a participant on your thread) went so far as to use libellous accusations regarding the professionalism of the Academies of Science who published Berthault’s work. Fortunately for him that hasn’t yet been taken into account by the Academicians he was insulting, but memories can be long. If he were a professional sedimentologist (not a geologist!) he would have produced the only scientific argument worthy of scrutiny. This would be to refute the claim of the stratigraphic principles being invalid: not knock the experimenter and the scientific journals that publish him. Anybody can do this, and get the applause of those having a similar lack of specialised knowledge, and believe he is adding grist to their biased mill. His attempt to belittle the value of Berthault’s person and the laboratory experiments should have immediately alerted any true scientist to the questionable character of the critic. A simple experiment validating the stratigraphic principle of superposition, for instance, would do the trick. Instead, he distracts attention by a series of questions and affirmations which those less knowledgeable assume proves the experimental results are wrong. Of course, it does nothing of the sort. Additionally, he insinuates religious and creationist motives to the experimenter, in a further attempt to discredit the experiments. One statement in his critique which holds water, however, is “…if Berthault were correct, he would be the greatest geologist of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries”: it would also mean the total removal of any support data for evolution theory. Let it be clear, despite the misleading statements in Alec MacAndrew’s web critique, Berthault’s work makes no reference to a young earth or religion. He is a Catholic, but not a creationist. He has said this many times but his critics feel that by saying the opposite they will reduce his credibility, and in some distorted way the implication of his experiments. Finally, his experimental results are empirical, observable and can be repeated in any properly equipped hydraulics laboratory. They are self-demonstrating and evident to any student. They certainly don’t depend on Berthault’s interpretation or anyone else’s.
E
edwest2
Guest
And if those who put forth science this way insist that what we can see and confirm is not entirely true, then they should have teachers tell that to their students. What hogwash.There would be more than a few here who believe science is truth for it is the evidence we see. In fact the “truth” of science trump the truths of Revelation. But we know better than that now don’t we.
So we must use due caution when teaching this to our kids. Perhaps a disclaimer on the textbooks would be a good idea. The contents of this here textbook we think are true, but since we cannot know truth then maybe they are false. Hmmmm! Maybe we should just put the odds of this being true are 15% and could change tomorrow.
The students will be tested and have to know the partially true.
If they go to college, they will be tested again.
If they end up in a lab, what? They can’t know, by direct observation and experiment, that what they’ve been told is true?
Statements like, I could be wrong, are called obfuscation. This is a form of deception. And a faith statement: We don’t know everything but by secular faith in science, we will.
I am against secular faith in science alone and the worship of the human mind. It is a form of idolatry.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
By the same token, a few people post here, claiming to be scientists (there’s no real way of knowing), and their goal is to allow scientific materialism a foot in the door of the Catholic Community to corrupt it.
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
The point I was making is we will never be able to collect data on everything for some is hidden and not accessible to humans.
C
cassini
Guest
James, great post. It is comforting to know the likes of you and Prof. Maciej Giertych are out there, even to reassure us few who adhere to common sense that also fits in with the faith of our Fathers in these times of modernist domination. I do hope you are also aware that Copernicanism in a way is a philosophy and not a science. Indeed to properly understand the ‘success’ of evolutionism in the world one has to be aware of the heliocentric fraud.
But note what happens now. The evolutionists, unable to show empirical evidence for any evolutionary biogenesis and transformation, and because they do not want posts like yours to be prolonged, they will stay silent, the thread will go further down the list and the evolutionist wolves will wait for another thread to continue their mission. If these people had their way, they would eliminate all notion of direct creation from the face of the earth and think they were doing Catholicism a favour. There is one addition I would make to your wonderful post, evolutionism also concerns THEOLOGY, and there lies the real danger.Finally here is a copy of a letter I have just sent to English Catholic newspapers.
Sir,
Because of opinions from Cardinal Ratzinger in 1981 and Pope John Paul II in 1996, Cardinal Schonborn in 2005 and now L’Osservatori Romano’s ‘there has been no condemnation of evolution’, the Catholic world behaves as though there is a ‘teaching’ that says evolutionism is NOT contrary to the Catholic faith, one can see how theistic-evolutionism has found a niche in the Catholic Church.
The above utterences however give no such licence in the Church. There has been only ONE semi-official teaching on the subject, Pope Pius XII’s HUMANI GENERIS of 1950. This encyclical is very clear and totally complies with tradition. It only allows debate on evoution but carries warnings that evolutionist beliefs MUST comply with Catholic dogma, not that they DO: ‘If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.’ These doctrines are those on Creation, Adam as the first man from which eve and the whole human race descended, and the dogma on Original Sin. In other words, Catholic interest in evolutionism will be discussed and decided on theological grounds, not scientific speculation and theories: ‘provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.’ In other words evolutionists must compile their theology, submit it to the Church, and then we will see if evolutionism is compatible to Catholic teaching. As yet there has been NO Church sanction of any theistic-evolutionism.
But there are further ignored prohibitions for theistic-evolutionism in Humani Generis: ‘However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure.’ Now consider the recent conference on evolution held in the Pontifical Gregorian University under the high patronage of the Pontifical Council for Culture and organised by a list of high ranking clerics at which ALL were evolutionists. The reception creationism receives inside the Church these days is bordering on ZERO. I rest my case.
H
hecd2
Guest
Well perhaps you could give us a reference to this claim, because I don’t believe either Pius, JPII or Benedict would be stupid enough to make that claim.
You are obviously reading a different thread. I direct you to posts #158, #162 and #169 where Giertych’s claims were questioned on a scientific basis. (His claims don’t seem go beyond the silly creationist canards that genetic information - which he can’t or won’t define - cannot increase naturally, that there are no transitionals and that radiometric dating doesn’t work.) He now seems to have disappeared, unwilling to discuss his creationist silliness with someone who knows what they are talking about.
Well, if you insist on the argument from authority rather than the argument from evidence, I will have to point you to the fact that the vastly overwhelming majority of biologists accept the fact of evolution. The argument from authority is not one that smart creationists should use.
I don’t recall him giving any evidence at all. He made some assertions about information, mutations, transitionals and radiometric dating, and when challenged on them, he disappeared.
Rebutted? Not as far as I know. Where?
It is not libellous to say that Berthault’s three papers in journals published by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Sciences (2) were of an appallingly low standard and unpublishable in mainstream western journals (where, of course, Berthault would have published them if he could). It’s a statement of fact. In this case, the editorial standards of those Russian and Chinese journals have been lamentable.
This seems to be a veiled threat. Well, they don’t need to have long memories. I am more than happy to repeat to the face of an Acadamician of either Academy, that the editors of the respective journals have brought both Academies into disrepute by publishing those papers.
Anyone can do an experiment to show that, even in Berthault’s flume experiments, the sediments lying immediately below were deposited before those lying immediately above.
It is not the the experimental results that are wrong (as far as I can tell, the three papers of the 80s are ok pieces of minor experimental work), but Berthault’s ridiculous and unwarranted interpretations of them.
If Berthault isn’t a creationist then why does he use Steve Austin’s YEC flood ‘geology’ in his Russian paper? Why do so many other creationists, including you, count him as one of them? Why is he an adviser to the creationist Kolbe Center? Of course Berthault is a creationist.
Yeah, right. Unfortunately for Berthault, his interpretation of his experimental work has already destroyed what little reputation he had amongst professionals and he is being rightly ignored by them.
Wrong, Steve Austin’s flood “geology” is central to at least one of his papers. Austin is a notorious creationist.
In that case, why isn’t he being feted as the greatest geologist of the 20th century? Look, there are very good reasons why Berthault’s work hasn’t overturned all of geology and I explain some of them in my article here:
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
You can’t overturn an entire field of study with a few little flume experiments. To think that you can is hubris or self-delusion. Or a cynical awareness that one is not really interested in doing science but in propaganda and apologetics.
Alec
evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm
J
James_Edward
Guest
Cassini says, quite rightly that:
James
I agree but with the caveat that one has to be realist and recognise the prelates he mentions are strong on theology but weak on science. They lean upon theistic and atheistic evolutionists for information whose data is flawed. If it had not been for the late 19th century theologians having accepted Lyell’s principles of geology (without the slightest proof) the current lamentable situation in the Church whereby Christs’ teaching is challenged could not have happened. To correct things one has to begin by addressing and redressing the flawed geology. That done the Church’s Magisterial teaching will fall back into place.
James
S
StAnastasia
Guest
That will never happen – the bishops are not that stupid.
B
buffalo
Guest
The Church will always teach the truth.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
True, but the Magisterium has nothing to say about plate tectonics, continental drift, the cause of strike-slip earthquakes, the gradual sinking of Hawaii into the Pacific Ocean, or the 150,00 year record in Antarctic ice cores. These subject stand outside the purview of theology.
StAnastasia
B
buffalo
Guest
The truth the Church possesses is not limited to theology.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What has the magisterium to say to the science of geology?
B
buffalo
Guest
If God Revealed to us something about geology do we discard it?
The truths of the Church illuminate reason. The sciences are subsets of reason. You cannot diminish this no matter how you try.
- Status