Creationism vs Evolution in public schools

[grannymh]

Well, yes it is how you see it. But not everything is as black and white as you see it.

Atheists tend to believe in evolution, because they have no concept of a creator therefore it is easy to assume that teaching evolution is part of atheism. It’s not, because…

Catholics (for example) are free to believe in either or both. Teaching evolution is just as acceptable for Catholics as it is for atheists. So you could argue that these public schools are teaching Catholicism by teaching evolution. But that doesn’t suit some people’s argument, you see.

Evolution is in the field of science because it is something that scientists have put forward, and offered scientific proofs. Therefore it is only right that it belongs in a science lesson. Atheists are happy with this because it is the only explanation for the beginning of the world that they can believe in, and Catholics should be happy with this because it is a scientific explanation and we are not taught that the Bible version is 100% truth.

Welcome to RCIA and to the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

May I modify your last sentence above. Truth has a number of meanings in regard to Scripture. The Bible presents the truths of Divine Revelation. Divine Revelation as contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith is 100 % truth. What I think you are referring to is that the Bible contains some figurative language. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Catholic Church Councils have discerned the true reality which is expressed in figurative language.

Blessings,
granny

THE HOLY EUCHARIST
IS THE LIGHT, STRENGTH, AND LIFE OF OUR SOULS.

 

[Cat_Herder]

You continue to express your ignorance on this topic: Darwin allowed the possibly of God in his Origin of the Species. He expressly does so, particularly at the end.

The public schools obviously don’t teach Darwin’s postscript, so you brought it up for the sole purpose of attacking me.

 

[Cat_Herder]

As you’ve done continuously, you’ve purposefully misinterpreted what was said. I never said that there was atheism in the classroom. I said that you want to chase atheism out of the classroom (whether it is there, or not.)

I can’t read your mind and I’m not privy to your heart. The same is true vice versa, although it clearly hasn’t stopped you from viciously attacking me.

When have I ever attacked you? I’ve attacked natural selection alone evolution and I’ve attacked the public schools but I have never attacked you, have I?

 

[kbachler]

The public schools obviously don’t teach Darwin’s postscript, so you brought it up for the sole purpose of attacking me.

Once again, changing reality for your own purpose. I’ve seen it taught that way, I experienced it taught that way.

Natural selection ǂ atheism.

Natural selection honors God. When you pervert reality, you dishonor Him.

 

[kbachler]

I can’t read your mind and I’m not privy to your heart. The same is true vice versa, although it clearly hasn’t stopped you from viciously attacking me.

When have I ever attacked you? I’ve attacked natural selection alone evolution and I’ve attacked the public schools but I have never attacked you, have I?

You don’t have to read my mind. All you have to do is read what I wrote, and then not add what you wish to it. I NEVER wrote what you claimed, but you twisted the meaning anyway.

I attack falsehoods, not you. Deal with reality, deal with the truth, and people will stop criticizing what you write.

You’ve attacked straw man versions of people and ideas. That doesn’t make Catholicism look good.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I attack falsehoods, not you. Deal with reality, deal with the truth, and people will stop criticizing what you write.

I lost track of the number of times you or the other poster called me ignorant, accused me of lying and told me to go to confession.

You’ve attacked straw man versions of people and ideas. That doesn’t make Catholicism look good.

Does this priest make Catholicism look bad?

 

[buffalo]

Again, you are incorrect. Public schools can teach a religion, they have social science classes that cover religion and do it all the time. Public schools cannot teach religion in such a way that A religion is promoted.

Yes and by teaching evolutionism in science class they are teaching religion there too.

 

[buffalo]

The design of a table exists; we know someone made it for a purpose.

With respect to the universe, we cannot say that design exists, nor can we say it doesn’t exist. In general, the assumption would be that it doesn’t exist, but only because that is a simpler assumption (Occam’s Razor).

OK - so we know we can detect design. Physics looks at fine tuning and they come up with this.

The extremely high level of fine-tuning astronomers and physicists discern powerfully suggests a purpose behind the universe.

•   Roger Penrose, in the movie *A Brief History of Time* (Burbank, CA: Paramount Pictures Inc., 1992).

 

[kbachler]

I lost track of the number of times you or the other poster called me ignorant, accused me of lying and told me to go to confession.

Once again, you change the meaning. Why not just try dealing with what people say? Will it be necessary to complain about your behavior?

We said that you demonstrated a lack of knowledge in the topic. You did.

We said that you misquoted things. You did.

We said that you misunderstood quotes. You did.

We then saw that it appears you were doing it all ON PURPOSE, and suggested that you should actually talk to someone about it.

Unfortunately, you seem to read evil into every line, you seem to assume the worst in everything and everyone.

I ALSO believe in our Lord. I believe that He is knowable and that is why He was willing to command us to love Him with all of our mind.

The TRUTH will withstand scrutiny. There is no reason for the type of shenanigans you are playing here.

Does this priest make Catholicism look bad?

He’s not twisting the argument. He is, unfortunately, overstating the case.

Do I personally believe that there are a great number of coincidences in the universe? Yes. Does that help me to personally believe that there is a God? Yes.

But that is NOT scientific, NOR is it a proof. It is a HUNCH. I don’t claim that it is scientific. I don’t point to a branch of mathematics and claim there is a proof of God there when there is none. I don’t step outside of reason and what is real.

The HUNCH is a strong enough HUNCH that it will convince a good many people. That is good. But if one claims that the hunch is TRUTH, then people will see the lie, and will not believe.

Just be honest. Don’t go beyond what is real. It isn’t necessary.

 

[buffalo]

No, it’s not supported by modern science. That’s why scientists reject ID, and why there are no sessions on ID at science conferences, or courses taught on ID “science” at universities.

It sure is as I have continuously shown.

Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design

WEAK ANTI-ID ARGUMENTS:
**1] ID is “not science” **
**2] No Real Scientists Take Intelligent Design Seriously **
**3] Intelligent Design does not carry out or publish scientific research **
4] ID does not make scientifically fruitful predictions
**5] Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo” **
**6] Since Intelligent Design Proponents Believe in a “Designer” or “Creator” They Can Be Called “Creationists” **
7] Because William Dembski once commented that the design patterns in nature are consistent with the “logos theology” of the Bible, he unwittingly exposed his intentions to do religion in the name of science
**8] Intelligent Design is an attempt by the Religious Right to establish a Theocracy **
**9] “Evolution” Proves that Intelligent Design is Wrong **
**10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design **
**11] Darwinian evolution is a Vastly More “Simple” Argument than Intelligent Design **
**12] **Macro-evolution is nothing but lots and lots of “micro-evolution”!
**13] Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like Microevolution or Macroevolution **
14] Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like “Darwinism.” The word “Darwinism” is a derogatory term used by creationists, intelligent design supporters, and other opponents of evolutionary theory that has no real meaning except as a rhetorical device to discredit evolutionary biologists.
15] Nothing is Wrong with the Modern Synthesis! (And, by the way, what kind of “Darwinism” is ID dealing with? Why?)
16] ID is really an attempt at overthrowing the well established principles of science. It is a theory which denies the history itself of modern rational thought and of our scientific tradition
17] Methodological naturalism is the rule of science
18] Methodological naturalism is a centuries-old, traditional rule for science
19] Science does not address the “Supernatural.”
**20] ID scientists are participating in a tautological exercise. They don’t really draw an inference to design; they assume a design in advance and then call it an inference **
**21] **Evolution and artificial intelligence research have proved that there is no such thing as the “free will” that IDers attribute to designers; and, there is a scientifically respectable form of “free will” that is fully compatible with determinism
**22] **Who Designed the Designer?
**23] **The Designer Must be Complex and Thus Could Never Have Existed
**24] **Bad Design Means No Design

 

[buffalo]

**25] **Intelligent Design proponents deny, without having a reason, that randomness can produce an effect, and then go make something up to fill the void
**26] **Dembski’s idea of “complex specified information” is nonsense
**27] **The Information in Complex Specified Information (CSI) Cannot Be Quantified
**28] ** ? Isn’t it just a “pet idea” of some dubious commenters at UD?
**29] **The ID explanatory filter cannot rule out chance or unknown laws!
**30] **William Dembski “dispensed with” the Explanatory Filter (EF) and thus Intelligent Design cannot work
**31] **Intelligent Design Tries To Claim That Everything is Designed Where We Obviously See Necessity and Chance
**32] **What types of life are Irreducibly Complex? Or which life is not Irreducibly Complex?
33] In the Flagellum Behe Ignores that this Organization of Proteins has Verifiable Functions when Particular Proteins are Omitted, i.e. in its simplest form, a protein pump
**34] **Behe is Jumping to Conclusions on P. falciparum and his so-called edge of evolution. P. falciparum did not evolve because it did not need to evolve: it is so perfect already that it cannot improve upon itself
**35] What About the spreading of antibiotic resistance? **
**36] **ID Proponents Talk a Lot About Front-Loading But Never Explain What It Means
37] ID Proponents use a lot of other buzz-words like Intelligence, Design, Complexity, etc, but never clearly and convincingly explain what they mean
38]
**39] **

 

[kbachler]

Yes and by teaching evolutionism in science class they are teaching religion there too.

Evolution is not religion.

 

[kbachler]

OK - so we know we can detect design.

No, we don’t

Physics looks at fine tuning and they come up with this.

The extremely high level of fine-tuning astronomers and physicists discern powerfully suggests a purpose behind the universe.

•   Roger Penrose, in the movie *A Brief History of Time* (Burbank, CA: Paramount Pictures Inc., 1992).

As I noted in stating my personal beliefs in a post in this thread TODAY, a hunch IS NOT science. We don’t KNOW anything. It suggests something because our minds are used to thinking of things being created. When we see a table, we know someone made it.

But our minds are often wrong. We “saw” a face on Mars - but there was no face, just an illusion.

Our minds are wired to see patterns. So of course we IMPOSE design.

But that is no connection, no proof. At best, a hunch. Certainly, NOT science.

 

[kbachler]

It sure is as I have continuously shown.

I haven’t seen you show anything yet.

Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design

WEAK ANTI-ID ARGUMENTS:
1] ID is “not science”
2] No Real Scientists Take Intelligent Design Seriously
3] Intelligent Design does not carry out or publish scientific research
4] ID does not make scientifically fruitful predictions
5] Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo”
6] Since Intelligent Design Proponents Believe in a “Designer” or “Creator” They Can Be Called “Creationists”
7] Because William Dembski once commented that the design patterns in nature are consistent with the “logos theology” of the Bible, he unwittingly exposed his intentions to do religion in the name of science
8] Intelligent Design is an attempt by the Religious Right to establish a Theocracy
9] “Evolution” Proves that Intelligent Design is Wrong
10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design
11] Darwinian evolution is a Vastly More “Simple” Argument than Intelligent Design
**12] **Macro-evolution is nothing but lots and lots of “micro-evolution”!
13] Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like Microevolution or Macroevolution
14] Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like “Darwinism.” The word “Darwinism” is a derogatory term used by creationists, intelligent design supporters, and other opponents of evolutionary theory that has no real meaning except as a rhetorical device to discredit evolutionary biologists.
15] Nothing is Wrong with the Modern Synthesis! (And, by the way, what kind of “Darwinism” is ID dealing with? Why?)
16] ID is really an attempt at overthrowing the well established principles of science. It is a theory which denies the history itself of modern rational thought and of our scientific tradition
17] Methodological naturalism is the rule of science
18] Methodological naturalism is a centuries-old, traditional rule for science
19] Science does not address the “Supernatural.”
20] ID scientists are participating in a tautological exercise. They don’t really draw an inference to design; they assume a design in advance and then call it an inference
**21] **Evolution and artificial intelligence research have proved that there is no such thing as the “free will” that IDers attribute to designers; and, there is a scientifically respectable form of “free will” that is fully compatible with determinism
**22] **Who Designed the Designer?
**23] **The Designer Must be Complex and Thus Could Never Have Existed
**24] **Bad Design Means No Design

Unfortunately, its practically impossible to address this list in a quote mode.

Most of the points seem to be non sequiturs after the first one anyway.

Let’s just point out this: If you claim ID is science - what is the hypothesis?

How will you test the hypothesis?

 

[buffalo]

I haven’t seen you show anything yet.

Unfortunately, its practically impossible to address this list in a quote mode.

Let’s just point out this: If you claim ID is science - what is the hypothesis?

How will you test the hypothesis?

1. What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

                  See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.

1. Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
   

                                      Yes. The scientific method is commonly described  as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments,  and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that  intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).   Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it  will contain high levels of CSI.  Scientists then perform experimental  tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and  specified information.  One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible  complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally  reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of  their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity  in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

3. Intelligent Design Predictions for the Fossil Record and “Junk” DNA

4.Predictions from an Intelligent Design Perspective Conversation with Biologist Luman Wing, Part 3

5. Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions

 

[buffalo]

Evolution is not religion.

Empirical science is observable, predictable and repeatable. So go ahead teach these aspects of evolution in the science classroom.

Evolution is a philosophy.

Evolution as Philosophy

 

[kbachler]

Empirical science is observable, predictable and repeatable. So go ahead teach these aspects of evolution in the science classroom.

Evolution is a philosophy.

Evolution as Philosophy

These aspects are often taught in a science classroom, just as they are with geology, astronomy, plate techtonics, etc.

Evolution is science.

But that didn’t address my question. What is the hypothesis with ID?

 

[kbachler]

1. What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

                  See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.

1. Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
   

                                      Yes. The scientific method is commonly described  as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments,  and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that  intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).   Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it  will contain high levels of CSI.  Scientists then perform experimental  tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and  specified information.  One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible  complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally  reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of  their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity  in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

3. Intelligent Design Predictions for the Fossil Record and “Junk” DNA

4.Predictions from an Intelligent Design Perspective Conversation with Biologist Luman Wing, Part 3

5. Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions

Please cut through the massive gobbledygook. What is the hypothesis?

 

[Cat_Herder]

We then saw that it appears you were doing it all ON PURPOSE, and suggested that you should actually talk to someone about it.

Unfortunately, you seem to read evil into every line, you seem to assume the worst in everything and everyone.

You accuse me of reading evil into you while you do the same to me. Physician, heal thyself.

I ALSO believe in our Lord. I believe that He is knowable and that is why He was willing to command us to love Him with all of our mind.
…
But that is NOT scientific, NOR is it a proof. It is a HUNCH. I don’t claim that it is scientific. I don’t point to a branch of mathematics and claim there is a proof of God there when there is none. I don’t step outside of reason and what is real.

What is real is not the realm of science.

What is reasonable is not the realm or science either.

I see in your statement above so much cognitive dissonance that you are exploding. That explains why you are treating those who disagree with you with such contempt. You aren’t evil or even angry; you are merely projecting your own uncertainty onto others.

 

[larkin31]

The public schools obviously don’t teach Darwin’s postscript, so you brought it up for the sole purpose of attacking me.

Cat Herder, you really do not understand school.

My school had a class on Darwin and the entire Origin was read and discussed. This was taught in the history department, because Darwinism has been eclipsed by my modern understandings of methods of evolution.

You continue to tilt against windmills (do you know Don Quixote?). Please learn more about the subject which you criticize. You do not know enough yet to get away with your generalizations here. Public schools are fully able to say in class that Darwin believed in God and did not discount God from his understanding of the origin of life. They can even say it in science class.

Have you acceded yet that you misrepresented the California standard yet? You accused me of non-intellectual argument when I showed that you did not represent it correctly. That is actually a pretty low blow when all I have done is read, CAREFULLY, that which you posted here.