Creationism and life in general

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
The main objective of advocates of Design is to reveal the inadequacies of the scientific account of human beings which are most evident in NeoDarwinism and the assumptions of many neuroscientists that they can in principle explain all the activity of the human mind. Natural selection is an incomparably weaker explanation of biological development than intelligent selection…
Click to expand...
How about going directly to the best source for an account of human beings? The Catholic Church – which faith/science programs like to avoid because of monogenism.
 
grannymh said:
How about going directly to the best source for an account of human beings? The Catholic Church – which faith/science programs like to avoid because of monogenism.
Click to expand...
Many children are not Catholics or even Christians. Should their **education **be neglected?
 
tonyrey said:
Natural selection is an incomparably weaker explanation of biological development than intelligent selection… To omit all mention of the Design argument from science teaching gives the false impression - now widespread in our society thanks to the educational system and propaganda on television - that evolution is **the sole explanation **of our existence. A flagrant sin of omission…
Click to expand...
Tonrey, could the omission of ID by both Catholic and Protestant scientists be because ID carries no scientific value?
 
I think the goal is to create a “one size fits all” creation account. For non-theists, the Biology textbook is all that’s required. For theists, the Biology textbook plus God. That solution is not adequate. A lot is left out.

Peace,
Ed
 
StAnastasia said:
Tonrey, could the omission of ID by both Catholic and Protestant scientists be because ID carries no scientific value?
Click to expand...
It is because Catholic and Protestant scientists are unwilling to admit the limitations of science in the classroom and lecture hall.
 
edwest2 said:
I think the goal is to create a “one size fits all” creation account. For non-theists, the Biology textbook is all that’s required. For theists, the Biology textbook plus God. That solution is not adequate. A lot is left out.
Click to expand...
For many science teachers who are theists the Biology textbook is all that’s required in the classroom even when it gives a false impression!
 
tonyrey said:
It is because Catholic and Protestant scientists are unwilling to admit the limitations of science in the classroom and lecture hall.
Click to expand...
I don’t know any scientists like that. Of course, a lot of the Catholic scientists I know are priests. Can you give any examples of “scientists are unwilling to admit the limitations of science in the classroom and lecture hall”?
 
tonyrey said:
For many science teachers who are theists the Biology textbook is all that’s required in the classroom even when it gives a false impression!
Click to expand...
Can you give an example of a classroom science discussion in which more than the biology textbook is necessary?
 
StAnastasia said:
Can you give an example of a classroom science discussion in which more than the biology textbook is necessary?
Click to expand...
Whether random mutations and survival value are a sufficient explanation of the mechanism of evolution.
 
StAnastasia said:
I don’t know any scientists like that. Of course, a lot of the Catholic scientists I know are priests. Can you give any examples of “scientists are unwilling to admit the limitations of science in the classroom and lecture hall”?
Click to expand...
The majority avoid mentioning religion in their science lectures - as if it is irrelevant - because it is not on the syllabus.
 
tonyrey said:
Whether random mutations and survival value are a sufficient explanation of the mechanism of evolution.
Click to expand...
The have worked so far. How would you determine when they are no longer a sufficient explanation?
 
tonyrey said:
The majority avoid mentioning religion in their science lectures as if it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the majority of math professors avoid mentioning religion in their mathematics lectures as if it is irrelevant. Some begin class with prayers (I love that), but they don’t invoke God to explain equations.
 
valentino said:
I agree that Darwinism should be continued to be studied and see if they can ever prove it conclusively to encompass the whole of creation.There is still so much to learn.Christianity should be taught in its proper place.Home or church.This applies to public schools only.
Click to expand...
So presumably it should not be mentioned in the classroom or lecture hall…
 
StAnastasia said:
The have worked so far. How would you determine when they are no longer a sufficient explanation?
Click to expand...
When it comes to human nature.
Catholicism holds that a human being is an unique unification of the non-material soul and the material anatomy.
 
StAnastasia said:
Yes, and the majority of math professors avoid mentioning religion in their mathematics lectures as if it is irrelevant. Some begin class with prayers (I love that), but they don’t invoke God to explain equations.
Click to expand...
Mathematics hardly affects the interpretation of human nature like biology and neuroscience…
 
tonyrey said:
When natural selection is used to replace intelligent selection.
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard of natural selection replacing intelligent selection. I’m not even sure what the later term means, as no scientists I know employ it, even the Catholic ones.
 
tonyrey said:
Mathematics hardly affects the interpretation of human nature like biology and neuroscience…
Click to expand...
But if God is to be used as a central explanatory principle, you can’t arbitrarily restrict it to boilogy and neuroscience. What about the Krebs cycle in biochemistry? What about Riemannian mathematics? Surely God should be invoked in classes about those subjects.
 
StAnastasia said:
I don’t know any scientists like that. Of course, a lot of the Catholic scientists I know are priests. Can you give any examples of “scientists are unwilling to admit the limitations of science in the classroom and lecture hall”?
Click to expand...
You know of no scientists that are willing to admit that science has limitations. If there actually are no such scientists, then that seems like a pretty big problem for science. If it’s just that you don’t know any personally, then you should probably get around more.

I’m an engineer, and I admit that science has limitations. There. Now you know of one.
 
StAnastasia said:
I’ve never heard of natural selection replacing intelligent selection. I’m not even sure what the later term means, as no scientists I know employ it, even the Catholic ones.
Click to expand...
Selective breeding is an example of intelligent selection. Humans use selective breeding when they need certain characteristics in animals. Just waiting for it to happen via random mutations and natural selection isn’t very efficient.

Genetic engineering is another example of intelligent selection. Just waiting for the right thing to pop out randomly isn’t very efficient.

Efficiency is important, even if you have 4 billion years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top