Creationism vs Evolution in public schools

[kbachler]

Evolution requires life. Life requires abiogenesis.

Life requires circulation; to give one example, circulatory systems are fractals; fractals require attractors; attractors require chaos.

Who defines what is “mainstream?” In case you haven’t noticed, Catholicism is not “mainstream” while abortion is. If your standard for determining truth is whatever is “mainstream,” that explains a lot.

Abiogenesis may have occurred. It may not have. It’s important, and a key idea, I inadvertently included it in my comment with chaos/fractals.

Chaos/fractals etc are not necessary for life. They show up in some places, they don’t show up in others, which demonstrates that they are not necessary.

Mainstream science is defined by what the current scientific community believes. I don’t define it. Established truth in part is found this way. Again, I refer you to Polyani.

 

[freethinker83]

ADAPTATION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF LIFE, NOT THE TERM EVOLUTION. Ah yes. The fatal question. Let me answer. Jesus has control of everything, including all biological and chemical reactions at the cellular level, the DNA level. In the beginning, everything was created by God, David, Jesus’s Father. However, as man flourished, the natural environment was and continues to be changed, but all under Jesus’s power. Under the guiding light of Jesus’s love, a person, animal, plant or microorganism can be permanently changed by an affect of man or weather patterns. However, Jesus can just zap back the original in a snap.
An example is when a factory was built and smokey pollution entered the air, the moths were covered with soot. And so these moths flourished in the environment because the birds who would eat them had a time seeing them, or something like that.
Essentially, the particular changes being made in God’s original creation are an effect of man, or weather patterns, both of which are controlled by God. If Jesus does not want a large moth population, He can give them a natural early death, so they do not flourish.
What should be taught in science class? God created. Jesus supports all created. Man for his comfort, has manually created. What man has manually created has an effect upon what God created. What is this effect? How will Jesus allow what man creates affect his Father’s creation? Not very scientific.
Can one allow Faith into the science class? If not, then Jesus will not be very happy. What was taught in science class before Darwin? Essentially, God created man, man flourished, and by the invention of men, changes in the world occurred, causing changes in God’s original creation. Smoking and lung cancer is an example.
More simply put-When Jesus allows a change in the environment, whether it be sudden or gradual, whether this change is an act of nature or an act of man. there will be changes in the adaption of all organisms including people, whether sudden or gradual, for survival, but as Jesus allows, not as we want. Until it is time for the world to end, then adaptation will end, I think maybe.:twocents:
As an example of dietary adaptation- I like to imagine that no one ever thought about eating frog legs. Not until God had all those frogs jumping around in those days, then people as they tried their best to control this, starting eating and enjoying frog legs.
And so there is some truth to evolution, but this is also under Jesus’s control. And these changes should not come under the term of evolution, but rather ADAPTATION.

What you are suggesting should be taught in the science classroom isn’t science, it is theology.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Abiogenesis may have occurred. It may not have. It’s important, and a key idea, I inadvertently included it in my comment with chaos/fractals.

Chaos/fractals etc are not necessary for life. They show up in some places, they don’t show up in others, which demonstrates that they are not necessary.

Mainstream science is defined by what the current scientific community believes. I don’t define it. Established truth in part is found this way. Again, I refer you to Polyani.

[Brother Ockham’s razor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham’s razor) is a device for selecting solutions when several are offered. It is not a crutch for bridging gaps in causality. If evolution (theistic or not) is true there must have first been a transition from non-life to life. You cannot wave the razor and make the problem go away.

 

[larkin31]

How should a science teacher answer the child that asks, “Did T-Rex ever chase a human”?

Mary? Did you see this question?

 

[larkin31]

[Brother Ockham’s razor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham’s razor) is a device for selecting solutions when several are offered. It is not a crutch for bridging gaps in causality. If evolution (theistic or not) is true there must have first been a transition from non-life to life. You cannot wave the razor and make the problem go away.

True, but one need not be able to identify this link in the chain to be able to correctly identify other links later in the chain. We may never know with much certainty what the first replicating molecule or life form was. That does not mean, however, that we do not know a lot of other things about evolutionary processes and truth. Even the CC understands this and acknowledges this.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

True, but one need not be able to identify this link in the chain to be able to correctly identify other links later in the chain. We may never know with much certainty what the first replicating molecule or life form was. That does not mean, however, that we do not know a lot of other things about evolutionary processes and truth. Even the CC understands this and acknowledges this.

That may be true and it may be best that the subject of Biology focus on what we do know for certainty (which being, as you said, the “other links in the chain”). However, that does not rule out a person’s right to know about the very first link. I do believe though that Theology is the class best to answer that question. Unfortunately, it doesn’t get as much respect among self-proclaimed science ‘experts’ as Biology does. That there is the problem.

 

[larkin31]

That may be true and it may be best that the subject of Biology focus on what we do know for certainty (which being, as you said, the “other links in the chain”). However, that does not rule out a person’s right to know about the very first link. I do believe though that Theology is the class best to answer that question. Unfortunately, it doesn’t get as much respect among self-proclaimed science ‘experts’ as Biology does. That there is the problem.

biology teachers should not be expected to entertain theology in their classes. I don’t understand your point.

I can point you to very prominent biologists who respect religion and theology very much. Try Francis Collins, for starters (head of the Human Genome Project).

 

[kbachler]

[Brother Ockham’s razor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham’s razor) is a device for selecting solutions when several are offered. It is not a crutch for bridging gaps in causality. If evolution (theistic or not) is true there must have first been a transition from non-life to life. You cannot wave the razor and make the problem go away.

Huh? Ockham’s razor indicates just pick the simplest solution. If you argue that point them a self-replicating molecule combines with a clay/oil bubble on a murky shore. That’s all you need, and its the simplest solution. A “God hypothesis” is not necessary for biology. (Fewer ad hoc hypotheses is simpler.)

Before anyone misunderstands, that is not arguing that God does not exist. It’s just pointing out that one can easily imagine the above possibility (already lab tested, BTW) which is simple - per Cat Herder’s Ockham’s razor comment.

 

[kbachler]

That may be true and it may be best that the subject of Biology focus on what we do know for certainty (which being, as you said, the “other links in the chain”). However, that does not rule out a person’s right to know about the very first link. I do believe though that Theology is the class best to answer that question. Unfortunately, it doesn’t get as much respect among self-proclaimed science ‘experts’ as Biology does. That there is the problem.

Its not a matter of “it may be best tha the subject of Biology focus on what we do know for certainty” - it’s a matter of that is the definition of Science.

“However, that does not rule out a person’s right to know about the very first link.” According to science, they already have that. It is only in Theology that a link before the first link is assumed.

Science doesn’t make a claim, one way or the other, about a link “before the very first link”

 

[kbachler]

ADAPTATION FOR THE SURVIVAL OF LIFE, NOT THE TERM EVOLUTION. Ah yes. The fatal question. Let me answer. Jesus has control of everything, including all biological and chemical reactions at the cellular level, the DNA level. In the beginning, everything was created by God, David, Jesus’s Father. However, as man flourished, the natural environment was and continues to be changed, but all under Jesus’s power. Under the guiding light of Jesus’s love, a person, animal, plant or microorganism can be permanently changed by an affect of man or weather patterns. However, Jesus can just zap back the original in a snap.
An example is when a factory was built and smokey pollution entered the air, the moths were covered with soot. And so these moths flourished in the environment because the birds who would eat them had a time seeing them, or something like that.
Essentially, the particular changes being made in God’s original creation are an effect of man, or weather patterns, both of which are controlled by God. If Jesus does not want a large moth population, He can give them a natural early death, so they do not flourish.
What should be taught in science class? God created. Jesus supports all created. Man for his comfort, has manually created. What man has manually created has an effect upon what God created. What is this effect? How will Jesus allow what man creates affect his Father’s creation? Not very scientific.
Can one allow Faith into the science class? If not, then Jesus will not be very happy. What was taught in science class before Darwin? Essentially, God created man, man flourished, and by the invention of men, changes in the world occurred, causing changes in God’s original creation. Smoking and lung cancer is an example.
More simply put-When Jesus allows a change in the environment, whether it be sudden or gradual, whether this change is an act of nature or an act of man. there will be changes in the adaption of all organisms including people, whether sudden or gradual, for survival, but as Jesus allows, not as we want. Until it is time for the world to end, then adaptation will end, I think maybe.:twocents:
As an example of dietary adaptation- I like to imagine that no one ever thought about eating frog legs. Not until God had all those frogs jumping around in those days, then people as they tried their best to control this, starting eating and enjoying frog legs.
And so there is some truth to evolution, but this is also under Jesus’s control. And these changes should not come under the term of evolution, but rather ADAPTATION.

Mary,

Please design, and then explain to us, your scientific hypothesis and the science experiment you would do to test that hypothesis. For example, how would you design a test to show that Jesus was allowing a change to the environment, and rule out all other factors as allowing that change?

 

[kbachler]

So how did evolving humans become human? Or rather what distinguishes you and me from Homo Erectus since we both are bipedal?

My apology. A discussion of evolution may be off topic. However, 21st century technology does try to address the nature of the human person. It simply does not address the fully complete human nature which in itself is rational/corporeal.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

You are asking key questions that science is considering now. The following is intersting:

from knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Evolution_of_Homo_sapiens/

Evolution of Homo sapiens
Since the mid-1990s, there has been a remarkable convergence of views about the evolution of Homo sapiens amongst paleoanthropologists, geneticists, and molecular biologists. This convergence is the subject of books such as Steve Olsen’s Mapping Human History (2002). This modern synthesis is also remarkable for its specificity. For example, there is strong scientific evidence supporting these conclusions:

-around 2 to 2.5 million years ago, the genus Homo first appeared;
-about 7,500 generations have passed since the appearance of modern humans;
-every person alive today is descended from a relatively small group of individuals living in Africa sometime between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago;
-mitochondrial Eve lived about 150,000 years ago;
-Y-chromosomal Adam lived between 35,000 and 90,000 years ago.
-However, the fossil record is far from complete and it is to be expected that many currently held hypotheses about human evolution will need to be revised.

The role of language in the story of human evolution remains largely a matter of speculation, but recent discoveries about the FOXP2 gene, "the first gene known to be involved in the development of speech and language"1, have suggested new lines of inquiry and raised hopes about progress in understanding the origins of speech and language.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I can point you to very prominent biologists who respect religion and theology very much. Try Francis Collins, for starters (head of the Human Genome Project).

And I can point you the likes of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, two of them respected scientists yet have no qualms with labeling religion (and its followers) as superstitious and brainwashed.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Huh? Ockham’s razor indicates just pick the simplest solution. If you argue that point them a self-replicating molecule combines with a clay/oil bubble on a murky shore. That’s all you need, and its the simplest solution. A “God hypothesis” is not necessary for biology. (Fewer ad hoc hypotheses is simpler.)

Before anyone misunderstands, that is not arguing that God does not exist. It’s just pointing out that one can easily imagine the above possibility (already lab tested, BTW) which is simple - per Cat Herder’s Ockham’s razor comment.

Problem: a bunch of self replicating molecules in a bubble is not a cell. The “genetic” code of the molecules does not magically change once it enters the bubble such that it starts producing copies of itself and the bubble. This is what I mean about sloppy science teaching. Some folks are so desperate to get rid of God that they will break every rule of causality and claim that it is just an exercise of parsimony.

Put that razor down before you hurt yourself.

 

[larkin31]

And I can point you the likes of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, two of them respected scientists yet have no qualms with labeling religion (and its followers) as superstitious and brainwashed.

sure.

I never claimed otherwise. So? Just ignore them, right? There is an opinion out there of every kind, no?

 

[larkin31]

…This is what I mean about sloppy science teaching. Some folks are so desperate to get rid of God that they will break every rule of causality and claim that it is just an exercise of parsimony.

Which “folks” do you mean? Are you claiming that school teachers are performing “sloppy science teaching” and are “so desperate to get rid of God that they will break every rule of causality”? I have never seen such a thing in my 25 years of high school teaching. Can you point to some school science teaching that does this?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Which “folks” do you mean? Are you claiming that school teachers are performing “sloppy science teaching” and are “so desperate to get rid of God that they will break every rule of causality”? I have never seen such a thing in my 25 years of high school teaching. Can you point to some school science teaching that does this?

I can point to plenty of professors that do it. Two have already been named and I can add to the list one of my own profs. These professors produce graduates who then go on to teach in the public schools. My school days are long behind me and so I have not had the displeasure of encountering one in grade school but I am sure my future children will.

 

[larkin31]

I can point to plenty of professors that do it. Two have already been named and I can add to the list one of my own profs. These professors produce graduates who then go on to teach in the public schools. My school days are long behind me and so I have not had the displeasure of encountering one in grade school but I am sure my future children will.

In college? Who cares what is done in college with adults? What goes on here on this topic at CA is worse than what occurs in college classrooms. Terrible science is peddled here in the name of religious faith, and these comments don’t follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

By the way, I was premed in college, and in my 10 science classes at an Ivy League university, I never had a single professor of chemistry, biology, physics, or anthropology (or calculus, for that matter) make a single remark about God either way. If an intelligent adult can’t handle a religious remark from a professor in a university or college, then they should go back to grade school–where we actually do try to protect children from undue influence either way.

 

[Cat_Herder]

In college? Who cares what is done in college with adults?
.

The First Amendment applies to any institution of education that is controlled by the state be it K-12 or college.

What goes on here on this topic at CA is worse than what occurs in college classrooms. Terrible science is peddled here in the name of religious faith, and these comments don’t follow the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Last time I checked it was the atheists who had the junk science and gap arguments, and this thread bears that out.

That raises an interesting question. Who decides what is “good” science? Whoever has the sheepskins. Who has the sheepskins? A bunch of atheists and agnostics. Isn’t that kind of like letting the Communist Party count the ballots? So let the theists earn sheepskins, you say. But who decides who gets a sheepskin? The Communist Party.

 

[grannymh]

You are asking key questions that science is considering now.

FYI
Scientific questions regarding the origin of human nature are being discussed in the Back Fence forum.

These links state the guidelines which must be followed in order to discuss evolution in the Back Fence forum.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6681612&postcount=11

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6782250&postcount=13

Currently, this thread is discussing genetics.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478146

The intention of this thread is to show the different ways of arriving at theories regarding the origin of today’s human person. Think in terms of – **How **does one arrive at their theories? How is the true, fully complete nature of the human known?

This means that the research methods and materials of different areas of natural science, from archaeology to zoology, can be discussed as long as the information generally pertains to the human species and its unique human nature. In addition, the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought should be used.

Hopefully, opposing methods can be discussed respectfully and not hotly debated.

Please review and follow the guidelines regarding the topic of evolution.

 

[larkin31]

The First Amendment applies to any institution of education that is controlled by the state be it K-12 or college.

Was this a state college you meant? And what, exactly, was said? Either you are claiming that a law was broken or you are just saying that you disagreed with a professor’s opinion at college. Which we have all been through.

Last time I checked it was the atheists who had the junk science and gap arguments, and this thread bears that out.

Huh? When? Where? Chemistry is “junk science”? Physics is “junk science”? Cytology is “junk science”?

That raises an interesting question. Who decides what is “good” science? Whoever has the sheepskins. Who has the sheepskins? A bunch of atheists and agnostics.

Oh, come on. This is not even worth a reply.