Darwinism in schools?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tigress
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First of all, the pope is not a scientific authority. When he makes statements about what is or is not scientifically valid he is as fallible as any other person. Now if he were to make a statement about what scientific theory is compatible with Catholic doctrine, then he might be teaching with authority. But you will notice that nowhere in that article did he say anything about evolution being incompatible with Catholic doctrine.

Secondly, USA Today is not a scientific journal. It is a popular publication that picks it’s stories according to how much popular interest there might be in them.

Thirdly, the inability to conduct controlled experiments that duplicate evolution is not unique to evolution. Anyone who says evolution is not substantially settled would also have to say that the fall of the Roman Empire is also just a theory, since we cannot go back and observe it ourselves. We accept it as fact on the basis of testimony that has been handed down through many generations. We form a level of confidence in those facts based on how consistent they seem with other facts that we accept.

And lastly, no scientific theory is ever definitively proven. It is always open to falsification based on new evidence. Any scientist worth his salt must always be open to admitting that he was wrong when new evidence shows something that contradicts what he once held to be true. In the last century science had to accept some corrections to Newtonian physics when experiments showed that Einstein’s theories were more accurate than Newtonian theory. And some day Einstein’s theories may be replaced by something else. Real science is quite fluid. So when you say evolution is not a settled matter, you are right. But neither is any other scientific theory.
The Pope is the head of Christ’s Church on earth. For Catholics, he provides the necessary information that science excludes or denies outright. The Pope stated it is impossible to verify or disprove the theory. Therefore, the Church is agnostic about it.

Perhaps you should look at threads condemning the Church about Galileo or Copernicus.

USA Today did not quote the Pope in error. I have read the same story elsewhere.

If science is silent about God, and the Church is not a scientific authority, then why are there so many posts made constantly here that disparage the Church for making any negative pronouncements about science? Or, on occasion, praising the Church for making positive/agreeable pronouncements about science?

Peace,
Ed
 
Do you see any potential for human beings to physically evolve further?
Yes. For example, we are currently evolving resistance to HIV and to Malaria, among other diseases. In the Western world we are evolving resistance to the negative effects of an over-rich diet, see Apolipoprotein A-I Milano. We are evolving an improved ability to avoid fast approaching vehicles. We are still evolving lots of things to adjust to our changing environment.
I mean, since we were once apes,
We still meet the scientific definition of Hominidae, which includes the other great apes, many extinct species and ourselves.
any chance of further transitional issues that may match reality.
There is a chance, yes. However, given the degree of global intermixing it is unlikely. If we do set up permanent colonies on other planets, then gene flow may be low enough to allow speciation.

rossum
 
What are your thoughts on it? Apologies in advanced if I’ve posted this in the wrong section.

To make an analogy of this, I feel like teaching Darwinism is like teaching us about the various religions (ancient or otherwise); it is our choice to believe or not to believe, and though they might be implying Darwinism is the ultimate truth they make it clear to children that it is simply a theory and is taught for the sake of science.
but it is the truth. evolution is a FACT. it does not contradict the catholic church’s teachings in any way. Darwin himself was a Christian. the church has never banned any of his work (the church only banned books on evolutioin which attempted to disprove God). creationism is an insult to both God and nature. i really wish people would realise this.
 
With stories changing within the stories.
Is slavery allowed? What was the Christian answer in the New Testament during the Roman Empire? What is the Christian answer now? All sorts of things change, including our interpretation of Revelation. Consider the different Catholic attitudes to Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus over the years.

As our knowledge of the universe changes, so science changes its theories that describe the universe. Science changes as our knowledge grows. That is the strength of science, and why it has been so successful. It rejects what does not match reality.

rossum
 
Yes. For example, we are currently evolving resistance to HIV and to Malaria, among other diseases. In the Western world we are evolving resistance to the negative effects of an over-rich diet, see Apolipoprotein A-I Milano. We are evolving an improved ability to avoid fast approaching vehicles. We are still evolving lots of things to adjust to our changing environment.

We still meet the scientific definition of Hominidae, which includes the other great apes, many extinct species and ourselves.

There is a chance, yes. However, given the degree of global intermixing it is unlikely. If we do set up permanent colonies on other planets, then gene flow may be low enough to allow speciation.

rossum
This is adaptation what you describe. If I drink a bunch of beers every day, I will eventually require more beers to get the same “effect”. No Star Trek style egg head brains in another billion years?

The ape DNA grasping has been shoved down the throats of the gullible. Similar DNA is not equal DNA.
 
This is adaptation what you describe.
Some adaptation is not inheritable. If I exercise and build up a lot of muscles that is adaptation, but my children will not inherit big muscles.

Evolution is to do with inheritable changes. The Apolipoprotein A-I Milano mutation is inheritable and so counts as evolution. The anti-malaria mutations, such as HbC and HbS, are inheritable and so count as evolution. Inheritable variation is evolution.
The ape DNA grasping has been shoved down the throats of the gullible. Similar DNA is not equal DNA.
Of course. Chimpanzee DNA is not equal to Gorilla DNA, yet both are apes. DNA paternity testing shows that no two humans have exactly equal DNA, not even identical twins – there are always a few copying errors as the twins develop separately after the zygote splits.

The pattern of differences in DNA indicates a nested hierarchy.

rossum
 
This is adaptation what you describe. If I drink a bunch of beers every day, I will eventually require more beers to get the same “effect”. No Star Trek style egg head brains in another billion years?
That is not the same thing. Adaptation is not genetic and not passed down through heredity to offspring. The evolutionary process is.
 
The Pope is the head of Christ’s Church on earth. For Catholics, he provides the necessary information that science excludes or denies outright. The Pope stated it is impossible to verify or disprove the theory. Therefore, the Church is agnostic about it.
I don’t know what you mean by that second sentence, or how it applies to the discussion at hand. But the Pope did not state it was impossible to verify the theory. What he did say was that…

*the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory
*

This is just a common sense observation about the limitations of controlled experiments. He does not say that it is fundamentally impossible to scientifically support the theory, at least to the same extent that other theories are supported. He only says you can’t use controlled experiments to do it. There are many scientific theories that cannot be verified by controlled experiments, but are still considered acceptable science.

That the Church is agnostic about it I fully agree - and as it should be.
Perhaps you should look at threads condemning the Church about Galileo or Copernicus.
Why? I am not condemning the Church for anything. If others choose to do so that is their business.
If science is silent about God, and the Church is not a scientific authority, then why are there so many posts made constantly here that disparage the Church for making any negative pronouncements about science? Or, on occasion, praising the Church for making positive/agreeable pronouncements about science?
I don’t know. That is certainly beyond the scope of what I was addressing. I was not disparaging the Pope when I said he was not a scientific authority. I think he would agree with me.
 
I don’t know what you mean by that second sentence, or how it applies to the discussion at hand. But the Pope did not state it was impossible to verify the theory. What he did say was that…

*the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory
*

This is just a common sense observation about the limitations of controlled experiments. He does not say that it is fundamentally impossible to scientifically support the theory, at least to the same extent that other theories are supported. He only says you can’t use controlled experiments to do it. There are many scientific theories that cannot be verified by controlled experiments, but are still considered acceptable science.

That the Church is agnostic about it I fully agree - and as it should be.

Why? I am not condemning the Church for anything. If others choose to do so that is their business.

I don’t know. That is certainly beyond the scope of what I was addressing. I was not disparaging the Pope when I said he was not a scientific authority. I think he would agree with me.
On the contrary regarding your last statement, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences exists as such an authority. The Church regularly makes pronouncements for and against certain scientific technologies and it cannot make such pronouncements without authoritative research to back up its statements. I believe that the Pope, understanding his position, is not prone to making guesses when he speaks. This subject is a long-standing issue between the Church and others who have made it their business to make certain Catholics, and other Christians, accept this.

I think the Pope spoke correctly regarding this issue, and it is everybody’s business, especially for Catholics. The truth about human origins is not entirely contained within scientific explanations.

Regarding theories, allow me to respectfully point out gravity. We know precisely how it works, even if we don’t know if gravitons exist, for example. If I was an astronaut chosen to go to the moon in the 1960s, I would immediately quit if the project director told me, “Well, gravity is just a theory. We really can’t tell you what’ll happen once you get to the moon.”

Respectfully,
Ed
 
Some adaptation is not inheritable. If I exercise and build up a lot of muscles that is adaptation, but my children will not inherit big muscles.

Evolution is to do with inheritable changes. The Apolipoprotein A-I Milano mutation is inheritable and so counts as evolution. The anti-malaria mutations, such as HbC and HbS, are inheritable and so count as evolution. Inheritable variation is evolution.

Of course. Chimpanzee DNA is not equal to Gorilla DNA, yet both are apes. DNA paternity testing shows that no two humans have exactly equal DNA, not even identical twins – there are always a few copying errors as the twins develop separately after the zygote splits.

The pattern of differences in DNA indicates a nested hierarchy.

rossum
Epigenetics is showing that lifestyle is inheritable.

We now know that the actual similarities of the genome were exaggerated. But beyond that what is important is epigenetics. The same 88 keys played on a piano yield multitudes of song variations.

Genetic piano
 
On the contrary regarding your last statement, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences exists as such an authority. The Church regularly makes pronouncements for and against certain scientific technologies and it cannot make such pronouncements without authoritative research to back up its statements.
When you say “for and against certain scientific technologies”, I agree with you. The judgment of the moral implications of various scientific technologies is certainly within the realm of the authority of the Church. But when the Pope makes a statement about the probable scientific success of a particular line of scientific inquiry (i.e. determining the historical mechanism for the development of species) he is speaking as an individual. The Church has not made any binding pronouncements on this matter, so we are free to exercise our best judgment to inquire into what actually happened. As you said, the Church is agnostic on this issue.
I believe that the Pope, understanding his position, is not prone to making guesses when he speaks.
Of course not. But if you read his words carefully he was not actually making a scientific judgment on evolution itself.
Regarding theories, allow me to respectfully point out gravity. We know precisely how it works, even if we don’t know if gravitons exist, for example. If I was an astronaut chosen to go to the moon in the 1960s, I would immediately quit if the project director told me, “Well, gravity is just a theory. We really can’t tell you what’ll happen once you get to the moon.”
Nevertheless, until we got to the moon we really didn’t have any first-hand verification that gravity works there as our formulas predicted. The early astronauts were trusting the theory because of the huge volume of experimental evidence that seemed to confirm the theory. The difference with evolution is that the amount of data we can gather is quite a bit smaller for the reasons the Pope pointed out. Nevertheless it represents a difference in degree only. You can say that evolution as a mechanism has not been quite as confirmed as the formulas for gravity. But I think the reluctance to accept what has been observed as supportive is due to the fear that such acceptance will undermine faith in God. Other scientific theories with no more support than evolution are not as controversial because they do not carry this baggage of fear. In a similar way the Copernican view of the solar system was opposed in large part because of the fear that acceptance of such a theory would undermine the belief that God created earth as a special place for the crowning of his creation - man. Many could not reconcile their faith with the science, so the science was denied. (Note: I am not speaking of the Church, but of various individuals, least you think that I am accusing the Church of Copernicus-bashing). Now most people have no trouble with the Copernican view, and if anything it adds to their awe and wonder over the complexity of God’s creation. Similarly I think the prime motivation for opposing evolution is that some people cannot see it as a means befitting the creation of man. Well, what about Jesus mixing spit and dust to make mud to cure the blind man? When you first heard that story didn’t it make you cringe a little, thinking of spit and mud as the means of healing? Yet what God makes sacred is sacred, whether we find it easy to accept or not. And if God chose to create man using a long intricate process of thousands of generations of prehuman ancestors, rather than a pull-a-rabbit-out-of-a-hat magic act, then we should be able to see the majesty in that too. When people begin seeing evolution as a wondrous act of God then I think you will see this opposition to the theory of evolution begin to subside.
 
Intelligent design should be taught next to Darwinism. Evolution is not fact. So, whats wrong with teaching another supposed non factual “theory”.
Yes, evolution is a fact. There is the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution. In science, a theory is a body of evidence that explains a fact. Without a fact of evolution there would be no theory of evolution. This kind of “knowledge” is exactly why we shouldn’t be teaching ID too - it just makes people more ignorant.
 
I don’t think it’s wrong to teach people a little bit about the theory of Darwinian evolution, provided that it’s taught as just that; a -theory.- I myself have no faith-based objections to the idea of evolution, but I do consider it to be scientifically-unprovable, to say nothing of being just so fantastically improbable as to make it scientifically irresponsible to take it for granted.

Until some final proof can be brought forth that evolution is really possible, we shouldn’t be teaching it as though it were fact, and even if we could prove that it was possible, that would do nothing to prove that it produced human beings. This is something else that would need to be proven. There are simply too many vast differences between man and chimpanzees (the highest primate,) to simply leave the theory as-is. Eight major evolutionary steps would be needed simultaneously to accomplish this “jump” from monkey to man, and each is so unbelievably improbable, that for even one of them to happen by chance would take so long, that by the time it was done, the Earth’s sun would have already expanded and consumed the planets surrounding it.

In other words, by all the laws of probability that we know of, evolution would be a miracle, even if we could prove it to be correct. Make of that what you will.
 
Quote: “When people begin seeing evolution as a wondrous act of God then I think you will see this opposition to the theory of evolution begin to subside.”

I have heard that last statement many times. It does not impress me at all. What is wondrous is God raising the dead, giving sight to the blind. turning water to wine, calming the wind and storm with His word.

The “fear” card is the other popular comment. And I really do understand why you would bring it up, but please note that I’m not assuming you are attempting to undermine Church teaching, just that the idea is relatively common. The Church does not fear, and it is not limited to pronouncements on faith and morals. It is one thing to say some people say certain things and it’s their business, and none of ours. It’s quite another thing to see the exact same ideas in textbooks, which, by definition, should only supply facts, and not religious commentary that would cause proper concern to anyone reading it, except, of course, to those who already accept it.

The following is Philosophy, not scientific conclusions.

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)"

Peace,
Ed
 
Evolution is backed up by overwhelming evidence. It is taught in all major colleges around the world. Most people who say that evolution didn’t happen are the ones who have not studied it. (not all but some) To know so little about it and declare that its false is just sad. If i recall correctly, even the Pope said that it is scientific and the church accepts it. I think we can also accept that God’s time is much different from ours. Anybody who truly believes that the world was created in six 24 hour days (in our time) is using only faith. That’s not scientific and it should be kept out of science class. That can be taught in religious schools, but it is not scientific in anyway whatsoever.
 
That is not the same thing. Adaptation is not genetic and not passed down through heredity to offspring. The evolutionary process is.
So a continual mutation should produce the outcome of that generation over generations?
 
Why would it not be possible to allow parents to opt their children out of learning about evolution and have somebody come in and teach them about creationism?
 
…The Church does not fear, and it is not limited to pronouncements on faith and morals.
I didn’t say the Church was afraid. I was referring to individuals. And what binding teaching has the Church ever put forth that was unrelated to faith and morals?
It is one thing to say some people say certain things and it’s their business, and none of ours. It’s quite another thing to see the exact same ideas in textbooks, which, by definition, should only supply facts, and not religious commentary…
I agree. And if I ever see a science textbook that presents religious commentary I would strongly oppose the use of such a textbook in schools. I realize that many people have added their own anti-God ideas to evolution. The list you presented are good examples of that sort of thing, I guess from the titles. I consider that addition to be poor science - actually no science at all.

A lot has been said about evolution being “only a theory”, as if a theory is a wanna-be fact that just hasn’t made it yet. In science a theory is an proposed explanation for empirical phenomena. No amount of evidence for a theory will ever promote it from theory to fact. It will always be a theory. Some theories have more supporting evidence than others. But they are still all theories. There is no reason to treat evolutionary theory any differently than the theory of Einsteinian relativity, or quantum theory. They all have the potential to be wrong, but they also have good reason to believed as correct.

that would cause proper concern to anyone reading it, except, of course, to those who already accept it.

The following is Philosophy, not scientific conclusions.

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)"

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top