Creation or Evolution

[Namesake]

And this means what, exactly? Mr. Dennet appreciates architecture? Mr. Dawkins is quite clear about his denial of God. On television, I heard the following: “We no longer believe in the Greek or Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” I think that was quite clear. His adding a Christmas tree to the Winter Break/Holiday/Feast or whatever is a purely secular and socio-tradition based gesture on his part. It no longer bears any relationship to anything remotely Christian, except perhaps, in some vague, historical way.

Peace,
Ed

It means that Daniel Dennet appreciates the beauty and inspiration of liturgy and he thinks the music and devotion are inspiring. He goes to church occasionally, which might be as much as some Catholics. That’s simply the truth. Same with Dawkins. He states clearly that he does not 100% rule out God.

I thought you were a seeker of truth, maybe not after all, eh?

 

[Namesake]

“science knowledge”? What kind of knowledge is that? I successfully went through a course of instruction in electronics and the word evolution was never mentioned in my studies. The same was true in my chemistry studies.

And what is the value of this science knowledge? It is a fact that many cannot read at an appropriate level much less write at an appropriate level by the time they reach college, and your concern is scientific knowledge?

Peace,
Ed

I’m sorry. Natural science knowledge, like biology, zoology. OK? And geology, and anthropology, paleontology, and astronomy, and philosophy, and psychology, and you must not have gone far in chemistry because organic chemistry and biochemistry sure do involve some evolution theory, especially at the graduate level.

 

[edwest2]

You seem to think chemistry always involves evolution? This is not true as any industrial chemist will tell you.

Seeking the truth? I do, but I have to be always mindful of the false connection between a godless theory and reality. And the constant promotion of an atheist mindset.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

I have just spent the better part of an hour listening to Catholic parents talking about how they home school their kids. You know why? They want God to be part of their education.

They don’t know about CCD? Trust me on this, the Church will always do a better job then government on that subject.

Some object to the atheist, secular and even pagan derived instruction some kids get at some public schools.

Ed, could you give me the name and location of the public school system that advocates atheism and paganism? I seriously want to know.

I’m guessing you don’t know of any, and are just putting that in to impress us, but if you do actually know of one, I’m willing to file a complain against them myself. Let us know if you really meant it.

 

[Nullasalus]

Richard Dawkins also says that he does not completely rule out the existence of God. And Daniel Dennet says that church is a place of intense beauty and inspiration for him.

Dawkins rules it out to the point where he’s able to regard those who believe in God as delusional, and expresses shock and dismay at scientists who do believe in God (Polkinghorne, for example). He doesn’t rule it out in the sense that someone who says they are ‘99.9% sure’ that something does not exist has not ruled it out.

Dennett’s admiration for the Church is purely the stuff of aesthetics, which perhaps is what edwest2 was trying to get at. His dismissals and caricatures of religious belief in other venues have been striking and, frankly, embarrassing to him (his debate with D’Souza illustrated as much.)

Let’s not pretend Dawkins, etc are simply suggesting that they are atheists and that they think their point of view is warranted. They take the position that no reasonable person should believe in God, to place the question practically beyond debate lest you be insulted or socially outcast. Dennett has said this more or less explicitly.

Rather culty if you ask me.

 

[Namesake]

You seem to think chemistry always involves evolution? This is not true as any industrial chemist will tell you.

Seeking the truth? I do, but I have to be always mindful of the false connection between a godless theory and reality. And the constant promotion of an atheist mindset.

Peace,
Ed

I have never said all chemistry is linked to evolution theory. But I will say it now. It is impossible to understand much about biological evolution without a pretty good background in chemistry. It is pretty darned hard to understand much about biology without a pretty good background in chemistry.

And just because a theory doesn’t include God doesn’t mean it isn’t real. You have a very skewed understanding and a paranoid view of science.

 

[edwest2]

This is a Catholic forum, so my viewpoint is Catholic. Skewed? The world of science has PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and others. Nature magazine did a study and most scientists are atheists. The New Atheism was written up in Wired magazine. I have facts, not anything akin to paranoia.

Two Catholics wrote a book titled Answering the New Atheism.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

Dennett’s admiration for the Church is purely the stuff of aesthetics, which perhaps is what edwest2 was trying to get at. His dismissals and caricatures of religious belief in other venues have been striking and, frankly, embarrassing to him (his debate with D’Souza illustrated as much.)

I thought D’Souza was completely destroyed by Dennett. Just shows how different people see things differently.

 

[Orogeny]

Why would excluding “science” from the educational system concern you? What would happen?

Seriously? Because we need science. Even you need science Ed.

I have just spent the better part of an hour listening to Catholic parents talking about how they home school their kids. You know why? They want God to be part of their education. Some object to the atheist, secular and even pagan derived instruction some kids get at some public schools.

Good for them!

Mathemics teaches no one where they came from or who they really are.

So, let me see if I have this right. You don’t have a problem with atheistic mathematics (as defined by you since it doesn’t include a discussion of God) being taught in school?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

“science knowledge”? What kind of knowledge is that? I successfully went through a course of instruction in electronics and the word evolution was never mentioned in my studies. The same was true in my chemistry studies.

Was God mentioned? Surely you understand that atomic theory is atheistic because it doesn’t mention God. Did you bring it up?

And what is the value of this science knowledge? It is a fact that many cannot read at an appropriate level much less write at an appropriate level by the time they reach college, and your concern is scientific knowledge?

I’m not going to touch this one!

Peace

Tim

 

[Nullasalus]

I thought D’Souza was completely destroyed by Dennett. Just shows how different people see things differently.

Yes, I thought the opposite. And so did a whole lot of atheists, given what they were saying over on Dawkins’ site while it was going down. Which would probably explain why the whole debate is happily posted on Youtube by a Christian site - Dennett came to the debate ill-prepared, and by the end of it he’s clearly frazzled. I find it noteworthy that since that debate, the ‘Unholy Trinity’ became Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, where before it was Dawkins, Harris, Dennett. It really seems that Dennett was viewed as a kind of liability (poor book sales, routed by D’Souza who at the time was a neophyte in these debates, while his views lost some favor in his home territory of philosophy of mind.)

Apparently D’Souza also bested Hitchens, by Hitchens’ own admission, in Vegas recently in front of an audience of libertarians - a group not wholly known for their sympathies to Christian causes.

I never thought I’d be impressed by him - his column writings are too attack-prone and black/white for my taste - but I’d recommend D’Souza (And Vox Day’s “The Irrational Atheist”) as someone to watch in these debates. He does quite a good job, to the point that Dawkins reportedly ducks any opportunity to actually debate with him directly.

 

[edwest2]

Seriously? Because we need science. Even you need science Ed.Good for them!So, let me see if I have this right. You don’t have a problem with atheistic mathematics (as defined by you since it doesn’t include a discussion of God) being taught in school?

Peace

Tim

I have a problem with any theory of evolution that excludes God and attributes the origin of human beings to purely random mutation and natural selection. I have a problem with any theory of evolution that identifies human beings as only animals and nothing more. I have a problem with any scientist such as Ernst Mayr who says that all supernatural causes are excluded from evolution. I have a problem with people who I come in contact with who believe in evolution as the reason they are here and the only reason.

These people think they are:

A) Only animals with no connection to anything supernatural.

B) Bags of chemicals that are preprogrammed by their genes and whose short existence only involves successful reproduction.

C) Atheists who use scientific atheism to talk down to religious believers.

All I’m doing is exposing the clear intent of atheists to establish Scientific Atheism as the official religion of the United States.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Nullasalus]

I have a problem with any theory of evolution that excludes God and attributes the origin of human beings to purely random mutation and natural selection. I have a problem with any theory of evolution that identifies human beings as only animals and nothing more. I have a problem with any scientist such as Ernst Mayr who says that all supernatural causes are excluded from evolution. I have a problem with people who I come in contact with who believe in evolution as the reason they are here and the only reason.

Science cannot touch on questions of God. On the other hand, anyone who says that science excludes God, or who attributes human origins completely to randomness and natural selection (as in, they declare God/agency false) is going outside the bounds of science and dabbling in philosophy and metaphysics.

If only more people called them on this.

 

[Namesake]

I have a problem with any theory of evolution that excludes God and attributes the origin of human beings to purely random mutation and natural selection. I have a problem with any theory of evolution that identifies human beings as only animals and nothing more. I have a problem with any scientist such as Ernst Mayr who says that all supernatural causes are excluded from evolution. I have a problem with people who I come in contact with who believe in evolution as the reason they are here and the only reason.

These people think they are:

A) Only animals with no connection to anything supernatural.

B) Bags of chemicals that are preprogrammed by their genes and whose short existence only involves successful reproduction.

C) Atheists who use scientific atheism to talk down to religious believers.

All I’m doing is exposing the clear intent of atheists to establish Scientific Atheism as the official religion of the United States.

Peace,
Ed

I suppose I am one of those people because I want to toss any mention of creationism or intelligent design from all public school curricula.

But I take a different position than the one you ascribe to me. I want to make sure that science isn’t damaged my the inclusion of bad science. I don’t have any wish to promote atheism. That’s where we disagree. All I want and all most scientists want is to protect the integrity of science and prevent creationists and intelligent designers from presenting their views as legitimate science when the fact is clear it is not. Those ideas belong in church, not public schools because they are religion and not science.

So all I want is no mention of a creator. That isn’t the same as promoting an atheistic agenda. In church or parochial schools do as you wish.

 

[Namesake]

Science cannot touch on questions of God.

Some scientists are starting to question that idea and I am all for it. I think we should be able to address the issue of God through scientific means. We do know that religion is not competent in science, but we might change the converse around someday. That would be cool, no? Develop a God detector? Why not?

 

[Church_Militant]

Some scientists are starting to question that idea and I am all for it. I think we should be able to address the issue of God through scientific means. We do know that religion is not competent in science, but we might change the converse around someday. That would be cool, no? Develop a God detector? Why not?

It won’t work. Science is no more qualified in religion than religion is qualified in science.

 

[Nullasalus]

Some scientists are starting to question that idea and I am all for it. I think we should be able to address the issue of God through scientific means. We do know that religion is not competent in science, but we might change the converse around someday. That would be cool, no? Develop a God detector? Why not?

What does it mean for religion to be or not be “competent in science”? The whole offering is ridiculous.

By all means, tell me - even hypothetically - your plan for detecting God in nature. And you do realize that such a thing already has a name? It’s called “Intelligent Design”.

 

[edwest2]

I suppose I am one of those people because I want to toss any mention of creationism or intelligent design from all public school curricula.

But I take a different position than the one you ascribe to me. I want to make sure that science isn’t damaged my the inclusion of bad science. I don’t have any wish to promote atheism. That’s where we disagree. All I want and all most scientists want is to protect the integrity of science and prevent creationists and intelligent designers from presenting their views as legitimate science when the fact is clear it is not. Those ideas belong in church, not public schools because they are religion and not science.

So all I want is no mention of a creator. That isn’t the same as promoting an atheistic agenda. In church or parochial schools do as you wish.

I’m not accusing you, specifically, of being an atheist. I don’t know what you mean by bad science. This is a purely political label. Have Intelligent Designers done any science? The answer is no. Have creationists done any science? Apparently not, at least according to scientists who believe little if any of what they are saying. You identify both as religion, not science.

No mention of a creator? That is all you want? That is my point.

In school, I along with my counterparts in public school, said the following:

I pleadge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I watched as God was systematically removed from schools, from hallways, from court buildings…

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

It won’t work. Science is no more qualified in religion than religion is qualified in science.

I must disagree here. This does not follow. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Church makes pronouncements about science all the time. There is a Catholic Bioethics Center staffed by priests and religious who have a competent understanding of scientific issues.

ncbcenter.org/

Peace,
Ed

 

[Namesake]

What does it mean for religion to be or not be “competent in science”? The whole offering is ridiculous.

By all means, tell me - even hypothetically - your plan for detecting God in nature. And you do realize that such a thing already has a name? It’s called “Intelligent Design”.

I don’t have a plan. ID isn’t science at all.

Religion can’t do science because religion is all about belief and science has no room for belief.