Darwinism in schools?

[LeafByNiggle]

To LeafByNiggle,

Here, on a regular basis, the phrase “evolution is a fact” appears. I’d be glad to PM you the next time another example appears

I don’t doubt it. I’ve seen it posted several times in this thread. But you won’t find me saying it.

And it is very clear to me that in most cases, people are using the word theory and fact to mean the same thing.

Real scientists know the difference.

What concerns most Christians, and many non-theists, is that this theory becomes carved in stone in the minds of all.

Why is this particular theory a cause for concern? Are they equally concerned about the theory of autism being caused by Thimerosal? That’s another example of a theory that has no solid scientific basis but is still “carved in stone” in the minds of parents with autistic children.

 

[rossum]

Some call gravity a “theory” others do not.

Gravity is both a fact (things fall down) and a theory (the presence of mass distorts the metric tensor of space-time causing geodesics to be curved). The theory explains why the fact happens.

Gravity is law and has not been disproved.

The word “Law” is irrelevant. It merely indicates a theory that can be reduced to simple algebraic equations. Newton’s ‘laws’ of gravity were disproved by Eddington’s experiment in 1919 and were replaced by Einstein’s General Relativity. We already know that Einstein’s gravity breaks down in the quantum limit for very small very massive objects, like Black Holes. That is why physicists are searching for a new theory of quantum gravity to correct Einstein’s theory.

Evolution is not law.

Evolution is a theory, and is better established than the theory of gravity. As I pointed out, we already know that General Relativity does not work close to Black Holes. There are no known areas in biology where evolution does not work.

It is evident that your knowledge of science is insufficient. Trying to make a distinction between “Law” and “Theory” is a sign that you are being misinformed by your sources, and lack the knowledge to realise that you are being misinformed. The comparison with gravity is a typical creationist canard, which only shows that the writer has insufficient knowledge of physics to realise the known problems with our current theory of gravity.

My apologies for being blunt, but you are being lied to by creationists and you need to learn more so you can recognise the lies you are being told.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

I don’t doubt it. I’ve seen it posted several times in this thread. But you won’t find me saying it.

Real scientists know the difference.

Why is this particular theory a cause for concern? Are they equally concerned about the theory of autism being caused by Thimerosal? That’s another example of a theory that has no solid scientific basis but is still “carved in stone” in the minds of parents with autistic children.

You seem to be missing my point. On this forum, on a frequent and regular basis, Catholics are asked about this subject for only one apparent reason: to make sure we are in agreement with it. Because if some of us aren’t, what? The earth explodes? We’ll forget how to drive? Just kidding.

But seriously, our lack of allegiance is sometimes characterized as an irony, as in, “and who gave you that computer you’re typing on right now?”

Seriously, why are real scientists using this theory as the ‘proof’ that God does not exist or to hedge their bets, say that God probably does not exist? Richard Dawkins? Sam Harris? And why the great cry of approval over something positive Pope John Paul II once said about this? We’re all about faith and morals, right?

From Communion and Stewardship:

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.”

“…which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

There are no known areas in biology where evolution does not work.

Any place where a structure is both complex and indispensable it doesn’t work.

I’ll give you two big ones:

The language of DNA
and
ATP Synthase Motor

 

[PumpkinSeed]

John, unless you can come up with another SCIENTIFIC theory that can challenge evolution, who are you to say that evolution isn’t true?

There is a pile of overwhelming evidence against your claims, not to mention, your theory that God just created all this in a snap of fingers is not scientific. It is a belief.

You have no scientific foundation for your claims, so please do not try and take science out of science.

Unless you can provide scientific and testable evidence for creationism that can prove evolution false, you should not be messing with science. Keep it in the classroom because children deserve to know the truth and be educated.

 

[johnnyjones]

Gravity is both a fact (things fall down) and a theory (the presence of mass distorts the metric tensor of space-time causing geodesics to be curved). The theory explains why the fact happens.

The word “Law” is irrelevant. It merely indicates a theory that can be reduced to simple algebraic equations. Newton’s ‘laws’ of gravity were disproved by Eddington’s experiment in 1919 and were replaced by Einstein’s General Relativity. We already know that Einstein’s gravity breaks down in the quantum limit for very small very massive objects, like Black Holes. That is why physicists are searching for a new theory of quantum gravity to correct Einstein’s theory.

Evolution is a theory, and is better established than the theory of gravity. As I pointed out, we already know that General Relativity does not work close to Black Holes. There are no known areas in biology where evolution does not work.

It is evident that your knowledge of science is insufficient. Trying to make a distinction between “Law” and “Theory” is a sign that you are being misinformed by your sources, and lack the knowledge to realise that you are being misinformed. The comparison with gravity is a typical creationist canard, which only shows that the writer has insufficient knowledge of physics to realise the known problems with our current theory of gravity.

My apologies for being blunt, but you are being lied to by creationists and you need to learn more so you can recognise the lies you are being told.

rossum

Yes gravity is a fact. I said some call it a theory, and some do not. The reason some do not is because it is evident and provable. The theory of gravity shows why it happens, and it does happen. You cant make a transition from one species to another and show it as you can with gravity. Cunard? Making law an irrelevant factor is quite foolish.

What sources are you going back to? Scientists are not a class of super beings with super-human abilities to know the ancient past, they are just people. None are all knowing. Being people, scientists do not always objectively seek truth wherever it might lead. I am satisfied that we didn’t rely on your sources when we traveled to the moon. Remember the very thick layer of loose dust estimated at 50 to 180 feet? Evolutionist warned NASA they would sink deep into it. This was based on the billions of years old “science”. Those large saucer shaped feet on the Lunar Lander really had there work cut out for them (lol).

 

[buffalo]

John, unless you can come up with another SCIENTIFIC theory that can challenge evolution, who are you to say that evolution isn’t true?

There is a pile of overwhelming evidence against your claims, not to mention, your theory that God just created all this in a snap of fingers is not scientific. It is a belief.

You have no scientific foundation for your claims, so please do not try and take science out of science.

Unless you can provide scientific and testable evidence for creationism that can prove evolution false, you should not be messing with science. Keep it in the classroom because children deserve to know the truth and be educated.

Your last statement is really important. We should pursue and teach the truth.

ID the science investigates the odds for a particular event. Odds above the UPB give us confidence of design.

If you do anything look at this video at the thirty minute mark: stay til you see the sand example.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Seriously, why are real scientists using this theory as the ‘proof’ that God does not exist or to hedge their bets, say that God probably does not exist? Richard Dawkins? Sam Harris?

I am not defending those whose misapply evolution or make it say more than it should. When scientists use evolution to “prove” that God does not exist they are not acting like scientists and I have no use for their statements. There may some confusion over what version of evolutionary theory we are talking about, so maybe we should not treat them all equally.

From Communion and Stewardship:

“64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.”

“…which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms.”

Yes, and it was well said. So let’s look closely at what he said. I don’t know if “ontological leap” is his words or yours. But I will assume they are his. Ontological refers to a philosophical concept - not a scientific concept. So it is not surprising that we should require a philosophical or theological perspective when considering ontology. But the form of theory of evolution that I would consider purely scientific does not make any statements about ontology. That would be overstepping science. So I don’t see any problem in Pope John Paul’s statements that you cited.

 

[Farsight001]

I haven’t seen textbooks and other materials writing the "fact " of evolution… The only thing more often done is the word “theory” is omitted as to bolster matter organizing itself (from nothing I might add).

There is no need to. When they refer to the fact, they just say “evolution” and when referring to the theory, they say “theory of evolution”. “Fact” is not a term typically used in scientific fields.

Also, no part of the theory says anything about coming from nothing.

Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

 

[buffalo]

Let us look at what Pope BXVI said:

…The more we know of the universe the more profoundly we are struck by a Reason whose ways we can only contemplate with astonishment. In pursuing them we can see anew that creating Intelligence to whom we owe our own reason. Albert Einstein once said that in the laws of nature “there is revealed such a superior Reason that everything significant which has arisen out of human thought and arrangement is, in comparison with it, the merest empty reflection.” In what is most vast, in the world of heavenly bodies, we see revealed a powerful reason that holds the universe together. And we are penetrating ever deeper into what is smallest, into the cell and into the primordial units of life; here, too, we discover a reason that astounds us, such that we must say with Saint Bonaventure: “Whoever does not see here is blind. Whoever does not hear here is deaf. And whoever does not begin to adore here and to praise the creating Intelligence is dumb.”

Jacques Monod, who rejects as unscientific every kind of faith in God and who thinks that the world originated out of an interplay of chance and necessity, tells in the very work in which he attempts summarily to portray and justify his view of the world that, after attending the lectures which afterward appeared in book form, François Mauriac is supposed to have said: **“What this professor wants to afflict on us is far more unbelievable than what we poor Christians were ever expected to believe.” **

Monod does not dispute this. His thesis is that the entire ensemble of nature has arisen out of errors and dissonances. He cannot help but say himself that such a conception is in fact absurd. But, according to him, the scientific method demands that a question not be permitted to which the answer would have to be God. One can only say that a method of this sort is pathetic. God himself shines through the reasonableness of his creation. Physics and biology, and the natural sciences in general, have given us a new and unheard-of creation account with vast new images, which let us recognize the face of the Creator and which make us realize once again that at the very beginning and foundation of all being there is a creating Intelligence…"

 

[Farsight001]

Any place where a structure is both complex and indispensable it doesn’t work.

I’ll give you two big ones:

The language of DNA
and
ATP Synthase Motor

The first one is not a thing. On the second one, there have been texts and papers explaining exactly how since before ID was first thought up, which is quite some time.

 

[Farsight001]

That’s all very nice, I’m sure, but my question was about what went on in schools, not at home or about what the Catholic Church does or believes.

So, it’s about what would be wrong with parents opting their children out of evolution in school. Remember I live in a country where there are publicly-funded schools of all sorts (including a very large number of Catholic schools) so my perspective is, of course, different from that of an American.

What would be wrong? You’d be denying your children a proper education. Even if you reject evolution and you teach your kids to reject it, at least they’d properly understand it and be able to more reasonably argue against it. Otherwise you get people blathering on and on and not really getting that nothing they’re saying is accurate or relevant. Case in point: the last 10 pages of this thread.

 

[buffalo]

The first one is not a thing. On the second one, there have been texts and papers explaining exactly how since before ID was first thought up, which is quite some time.

Care to share?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You cant make a transition from one species to another and show it as you can with gravity.

I sounds like you are saying that the only theories that can be supported by evidence are theories on which we can perform experiments in the present. Well, let me give you a different example of a scientific theory and you tell me if you think it is more like gravity (that can be confirmed) or more like evolution (that you say cannot be confirmed):

The theory is that thousands of years ago the earth’s magnetic field has several times flipped completely around so as to interchange the north and south magnetic poles. Now it is impossible to perform an experiment today that causes the earth’s magnetic poles to flip. We could wait for thousands of years and see if it happens again, but scientists already have sufficient support for this theory right now. Before I tell you what that support is, I would like to know what you think about it so far. The parallels with evolution are clear. Both refer to things that happened long ago. Both seem to require experiments that take an impossible amount of time to perform. So if these are the objections to evolution, then they should also be objections to the theory of magnetic pole flipping.

 

[Farsight001]

ID the science investigates the odds for a particular event.

No it doesn’t. That’s a flat out lie. And even if it did investigate odds, that would make it pure mathematics, not science. You need hypothesis, testing, and experimentation for science.

 

[Farsight001]

Care to share?

Care to elaborate? Share what? Share the texts that explain? No, as I have provided a few for you before, and you have simply declined to look at them. I’m not here to explain to you, since I know full well you listen to no one but yourself. I’m here for the edification of others so they know and understand that you have built your house on sand.

Anyone who has a real open mind is able to google them, as they are quite easy to find.

 

[edwest2]

I am not defending those whose misapply evolution or make it say more than it should. When scientists use evolution to “prove” that God does not exist they are not acting like scientists and I have no use for their statements. There may some confusion over what version of evolutionary theory we are talking about, so maybe we should not treat them all equally.

Yes, and it was well said. So let’s look closely at what he said. I don’t know if “ontological leap” is his words or yours. But I will assume they are his. Ontological refers to a philosophical concept - not a scientific concept. So it is not surprising that we should require a philosophical or theological perspective when considering ontology. But the form of theory of evolution that I would consider purely scientific does not make any statements about ontology. That would be overstepping science. So I don’t see any problem in Pope John Paul’s statements that you cited.

The real problem is neo-Darwinist theories that explicitly deny to God any truly causal role for the development of life in the universe. Did you notice that the word “theories” was used?

Once young people are indoctrinated into thinking that blind physical laws created a watch or a human being, that is the point. Once anyone believes that God was not involved then they can easily believe that they are free agents, accountable to no one. As I pointed out earlier with the textbooks, the trend is toward non-scientific conclusions being taught as the “obvious” answer to the question: Was some supernatural agent needed to accomplish the development of life? The obvious answer from the textbooks is No, or, at best, had there been a different turn of events and we could all be reptilian humanoids right now.

You seem to be ignoring the press being given to those who use the theory as their “proof.” That is the issue.

And I would ask one simple question for which I have never received a specific, detailed reply: What would happen in the United States if most people did not believe the theory? What would be the specific, definite consequences?

Peace,
Ed

 

[mytruepower2]

Evolution is not empirically provable. By that alone evolution should not be taught in the science classroom. I have repeatedly put forward that a mandatory philosophy class should be part of school curriculum.

I assume you’re applying this criteria only to matters of science as taught to grade school students, rather than, for example, history, or quantum mechanics, or ancient philosophy, or any of the other countless things taught in classrooms that are not empirically provable.

 

[Farsight001]

The real problem is neo-Darwinist theories that explicitly deny to God any truly causal role for the development of life in the universe.

There’s no such thing, so there’s no problem.

 

[edwest2]

There’s no such thing, so there’s no problem.

I invite you to visit any non-theist web site you can find. This is at the top of the list.

So, what do most Americans believe?

gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

And what do most leading scientists believe?

stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Peace,
Ed