Darwinism in schools?

[Farsight001]

Stop the hostility. This is a Catholic Answers Forum and although we have passions your getting a bit out of control. Child-like applies to language as well. Civility please.

You stop it first. My policy of internet discussion has always been that my attitude reflect that of the one I am speaking to. You have been quite hostile and belittling yourself, talking down to those who accept evolution as though we are stupid children, incapable of comprehending your awesome knowledge.

Lets say big bang, where did those elements come from, and then the elements of those elements etc.

I believe the elements came from God. This has nothing to do with evolution though, as it is concerned only with the change in life over time. You’re in the realm of string theory and M-theory, which don’t really cover such a question either.

As far as the quote you site, you determined I was trying to deceive, and frankly I resent it. I wrote that he was an evolutionist. Who said he was “all in” the creationist camp. He made a good point. People make good points. They don’t always have to agree with other parties. YOU CHOSE to interpret it that way because you think based on my writings, that I’m some kind of duped trickster. Please stop that.

When you post a quote deceptively to mislead people, what, exactly, am I supposed to say? I never said he was a creationist. You accusing me of saying so is a classic divert attempt. It does not work on me, so please, address what I really said and stop the games.

I don’t call you brainwashed or something to that effect. The moon dust was refuted by YOU and those in your camp. There was no factual evidence. I provided information you refuse to accept. Again, stop with accusations that I’m lying. When you say “for all to see”, is that empowering you? The Age of the Earth is a book, period.

No, the moon dust was not refuted by me. It was refuted by the guy who came up with the idea in the first place, and by nasa scientists before astronauts ever landed on the moon. I am merely explaining. You claimed I did one thing. I did not do this one thing, hence you, BY DEFINITION, lied. What else am I supposed to say but exactly that?

You say that The Age of the Earth is a real book? Really? Where is it? I looked it up. There are a few books with that name. None from 1987 though. In fact, none from before 1994 that I can find. Hence, the book is not real.

 

[buffalo]

Going back to the subject of the thread -

Faith in science? -Why skepticism is rising

…
In fact, given that Americans have grown broadly more skeptical of institutions in general, it’s not surprising that conservatives are more skeptical of scientific institutions than they were almost 40 years ago. What’s surprising is that liberals have grown less skeptical over the same period. (Perhaps because scientific institutions have been telling them things they want to hear?)

Regardless, while one should trust science as a method — honestly done, science remains the best way at getting to the truth on a wide range of factual matters — there’s no particular reason why one should trust scientists and especially no particular reason why one should trust the people running scientific institutions, who often aren’t scientists themselves.

In fact, the very core of the scientific method is supposed to be skepticism. We accept arguments not because they come from people in authority but because they can be proven correct — in independent experiments by independent experimenters. If you make a claim that can’t be proven false in an independent experiment, you’re not really making a scientific claim at all.

And saying, “trust us,” while denouncing skeptics as — horror of horrors — “skeptics” doesn’t count as science, either, even if it comes from someone with a doctorate and a lab coat.

After a century of destructive and false scientific fads — ranging from eugenics to Paul Ehrlich’s “population bomb” scaremongering, among many others — the American public could probably do with more skepticism, not less.

If scientists want to be trusted, perhaps they should try harder to make sure that those who claim to speak for science are, you know, trustworthy. Just a thought.

Read more: nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/faith_in_science_ElyzoJm9wNW7Vl7m8ESXYP#ixzz1r1aWJMu8

 

[buffalo]

Collectivist revolution in evolution

…

It now seems clear that biology may also have a second act linked to the widespread importance of collective phenomena. The explosion of genetic and proteomic data, of course, has ushered in the era of systems biology, as biologists have come to recognize the need to gain a more holistic understanding of the functioning of organisms. But this may not be the most radical transformation in store for biological science. A coming revolution in biology, some suggest, may go so far as to unseat Darwinian evolution (in its modern form) from its position as the key explanatory process in biology, and may just bring back some form of Lamarckian evolution — that old idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

The evidence for this radical turnabout has been accruing at an accelerating pace.

 

[Farsight001]

So this top evo didn’t say this? Another lie?

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen. “Professor Richard Lewontin”

I wouldn’t doubt he said it, but he was expressing personal opinion, not scientific principles, when speaking about God, as I already explained. I’m getting tired of repeating myself to you buffalo. I’ve given you this information half a dozen times in half a dozen different threads now. Do you have short term memory issues or something? There is no other reason you should have to hear something explained so many times.

 

[Farsight001]

Use the same techinque on your sources.

You misunderstand the point in posting those bible quotes. He is explaining exactly what YOU are doing by quoting out of context the scientists you cite - you are trying to suggest that they are making a statement or an argument they are not by citing for us exactly what you want us to hear, and nothing more, exactly what he did with those bible quotes.

hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/ch7-3.html

Sensors.

Yes, and? I responded to your mention of the probes already. I know there were probes. They are irrelevant. Plus your own link says they were frangible. Do you know what that word means? It means they were designed to break on impact. Now please, actually address what I said. To provide such lengthy explanations for things, only to have to brush them off and mostly ignore them is really quite insulting.

 

[johnnyjones]

You stop it first. My policy of internet discussion has always been that my attitude reflect that of the one I am speaking to. You have been quite hostile and belittling yourself, talking down to those who accept evolution as though we are stupid children, incapable of comprehending your awesome knowledge.

I believe the elements came from God. This has nothing to do with evolution though, as it is concerned only with the change in life over time. You’re in the realm of string theory and M-theory, which don’t really cover such a question either.

When you post a quote deceptively to mislead people, what, exactly, am I supposed to say? I never said he was a creationist. You accusing me of saying so is a classic divert attempt. It does not work on me, so please, address what I really said and stop the games.

No, the moon dust was not refuted by me. It was refuted by the guy who came up with the idea in the first place, and by nasa scientists before astronauts ever landed on the moon. I am merely explaining. You claimed I did one thing. I did not do this one thing, hence you, BY DEFINITION, lied. What else am I supposed to say but exactly that?

You say that The Age of the Earth is a real book? Really? Where is it? I looked it up. There are a few books with that name. None from 1987 though. In fact, none from before 1994 that I can find. Hence, the book is not real.

Hostile is a wrong reading of me on your part. Passionate and stern yes. I’ve never called you a lier. If your philosophy is give back what you get as implied, wrong approach. Sarcasm is one thing and I’ve used it…

YOU claim misleading, he was quoted as an evolutionist. This was to make a point that even an evolutionist has made such statements about creationism, and he did.

Is there a difference between manned and unmanned trips to the moon as far as concerns? Thick dust was still an issue because the moon had been probed unmanned.

Nancy Pearcey, The Age Of The Earth: Does Mother Nature Tell? is a bible/science newsletter vol.25 #2. I don’t think I originally quoted it as a book, but when you said “not a book”, the word book stayed in my mind. My fault. But you can check Chicago Tribune July 21st, 1969 section 1 page 1 (if you can find it) about Armstrong"s comments.

Yes the fear about dust had lessened but it was still on their minds because no person had ever been there yet. If you don’t like what I’ve told you so far you can always go to this NASA facts page. You might find the "** THE FOOT-PAD SINKING INTO THE MOONDUST** " interesting. Before or after the old Earth science was wrong.
science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/19jul_seaoftranquillity/

 

[johnnyjones]

You misunderstand the point in posting those bible quotes. He is explaining exactly what YOU are doing by quoting out of context the scientists you cite - you are trying to suggest that they are making a statement or an argument they are not by citing for us exactly what you want us to hear, and nothing more, exactly what he did with those bible quotes.

Yes, and? I responded to your mention of the probes already. I know there were probes. They are irrelevant. Plus your own link says they were frangible. Do you know what that word means? It means they were designed to break on impact. Now please, actually address what I said. To provide such lengthy explanations for things, only to have to brush them off and mostly ignore them is really quite insulting.

The purpose of the probes was to do what?

 

[Farsight001]

Hostile is a wrong reading of me on your part. Passionate and stern yes. I’ve never called you a lier. If your philosophy is give back what you get as implied, wrong approach. Sarcasm is one thing and I’ve used it…

You never called me a liar because there are no lies to accuse me of. You, however, have spoken copious untruths, so such a comparison between me and you just does not work.

YOU claim misleading, he was quoted as an evolutionist. This was to make a point that even an evolutionist has made such statements about creationism, and he did.

sigh. Read what I wrote more carefully in the future. I’m getting tired of repeating myself. There is not reason for you not to get it the first time. I already explained that he was quoted DECEPTIVELY. The quote is taken out of context to give the impression that he is saying something he is not actually saying. Read the rest of the chapter. You will see exactly what I mean.

Is there a difference between manned and unmanned trips to the moon as far as concerns? Thick dust was still an issue because the moon had been probed unmanned.

You’re missing the point. Your claim was that the footpads of the lander were so big because they were afraid of thick dust. However, since other probes had previously landed on the moon and we knew for a fact that the dust was not thick, then fear of thick dust could not have possibly been the reason for them putting big footpads on the lander that they launched years after finding out there was not a lot of dust.

Nancy Pearcey, The Age Of The Earth: Does Mother Nature Tell? is a bible/science newsletter vol.25 #2. I don’t think I originally quoted it as a book, but when you said “not a book”, the word book stayed in my mind. My fault. But you can check Chicago Tribune July 21st, 1969 section 1 page 1 (if you can find it) about Armstrong"s comments.

Ok. Now we’re getting somewhere. But what did he say next? Did it not occur to you that perhaps his very next words were something akin to “but then I immediately remembered that study was proven false, and I bonked myself on the head for forgetting” ? Wouldn’t something like that COMPLETELY change the meaning of things? This is why context is crucial, and without it, you really have no leg to stand on. A book can stand up on it’s own. Rip a portion of a page out of that book and it cannot stand on it’s own, though.

Yes the fear about dust had lessened but it was still on their minds because no person had ever been there yet.

Why in the world does a person have to have been there? They landed probes. They KNEW conclusively and definitively that there was not thick dust. It was of NO concern to them. They no more needed to have gone there to relieve their concerns than they had to go there to know it wasn’t made of cheese.

If you don’t like what I’ve told you so far you can always go to this NASA facts page. You might find the "**FEAR ** OF THE FOOT-PAD SINKING INTO THE MOONDUST " interesting. Before or after the old Earth science was wrong.
science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/19jul_seaoftranquillity/

What does this prove in your mind? Its a passing mention of moondust with no mention of it’s thickness and no implication that the dust was deep in a dramatized re-telling of the moonlanding written 30 years after it happened by a guy who could quite possibly not have been alive when it happened(I can’t find anything pertaining to his age). Do you really think that qualifies as evidence? Because it would explain why you understand this stuff so poorly. Mission reports and journal entries of the engineers who built the lander - THAT stuff is evidence.

 

[Farsight001]

The purpose of the probes was to do what?

So you didn’t even read the article you linked to? Because it says this in the second or third sentence. It was to inform the astronauts that they were close to the ground so they could shut off the “engine” because actually touching down with it still on would have damaged it.

They weren’t thermal sensors. They didn’t have equipment wired to them. They were metal sticks designed to crunch and break on impact so that the astronauts could feel that they were close to the ground.

 

[vera_dicere]

Evolution in science class.

“Intelligent design” in religion class.

Creationists are this society’s “the world is flat-ers”.

The Bible is not a book of science, we will loose souls amongst teh rational and atheists’ community if we pretend it is.

And of course evolution is not fully proven, that’s why its called the theroy of evolution, but the evidence we have so far is pointing to it rather strongly, and research is ongoing.

Let’s not make Catholics and Christians look like a bunch of primitive, uneducated idiots.

God started the ball of evolution rolling, knowing what would result.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Evolution in science class.

“Intelligent design” in religion class.

Creationists are this society’s “the world is flat-ers”.

The Bible is not a book of science, we will loose souls amongst teh rational and atheists’ community if we pretend it is.

And of course evolution is not fully proven, that’s why its called the theroy of evolution, but the evidence we have so far is pointing to it rather strongly, and research is ongoing.

Let’s not make Catholics and Christians look like a bunch of primitive, uneducated idiots.

God started the ball of evolution rolling, knowing what would result.

I agree. There is nothing wrong with evolution. God just obviously chose to do it this way.

 

[johnnyjones]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

You’re welcome.

poof! stars.

 

[johnnyjones]

I feel like you’ve been nothing but condescending to anyone who doesn’t share your worldview from the get go, so yes, you have written like that to me.

I’ve made my points like you have. Shockingly ,when your points are made ,you arrogantly say there is no condescending tone evident. Shameful.

 

[Farsight001]

poof! stars.

This is the hostility I’m talking about. Instead of reading the article and responding with substance, you post a mocking and belittling quip, thereby expressing hostility to the very existence of the position you reject, as well as being insulting to the poster who was just trying to help you.

 

[rossum]

poof! stars.

No, not “poof!” but gravity. Stars form from large accumulations of matter, drawn together by gravity.

You are giving us an excellent illustration of the immense range of science that YECs have to pretend does not exist in order to maintain their ludicrously incorrect interpretation of Genesis.

Are you now going to complain about atheist gravity being taught in schools? There is not a lot of mention of God in physics textbooks after all.

You really are the complete caricature of the science-ignoring, reality-ignoring YEC. Are you sure you are not a Poe?

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Evolution in science class.

“Intelligent design” in religion class.

Creationists are this society’s “the world is flat-ers”.

The Bible is not a book of science, we will loose souls amongst teh rational and atheists’ community if we pretend it is.

And of course evolution is not fully proven, that’s why its called the theroy of evolution, but the evidence we have so far is pointing to it rather strongly, and research is ongoing.

Let’s not make Catholics and Christians look like a bunch of primitive, uneducated idiots.

God started the ball of evolution rolling, knowing what would result.

First off - The Myth of the Flat Earth

The Bible is not a science book per say, but there are areas of intersect. It is in these areas that we must work diligently to know the truth.

By your last statement God knew what would result. OK

Did Adam look as God planned?
%between%

 

[johnnyjones]

No, not “poof!” but gravity. Stars form from large accumulations of matter, drawn together by gravity.

You are giving us an excellent illustration of the immense range of science that YECs have to pretend does not exist in order to maintain their ludicrously incorrect interpretation of Genesis.

Are you now going to complain about atheist gravity being taught in schools? There is not a lot of mention of God in physics textbooks after all.

You really are the complete caricature of the science-ignoring, reality-ignoring YEC. Are you sure you are not a Poe?

rossum

I’m sure your familiar with sarcasm of which I have received a large dose of myself. The “poof” was to imply that your now back to elements that needs to exist (ie gravity, matter) to have any “occurrence” in the order of organizing some form of life. You always need something to explain how something else came into existence. That’s understandable, but if we can’t get past how gravity or matter was" just there" to begin with, it becomes an obstacle.

I’m a little out numbered this go around. Sometimes I may be dealing with a deist and sometimes not. Debating theistic evolution has a different approach to it. If I’ve erred I stand corrected on responses to those in the different camps.

You may feel empowered using degrading terminology towards others, so be it.

 

[kama3]

It is time once again to play - The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge

From your site…

The algorithms and user interface utilized in this site are copyright with patents being applied for - with the exception of Richard Dawkins’ simulation around the phrase “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL”. The following is a description of the logic used to manipulate the player’s two codons. It should enable anybody to audit the outputs of the player’s simulation. It should not be used to reverse-engineer this site.

Ah yes. So some unauditable code is now going to be evidence?

 

[edwest2]

Evolution in science class.

“Intelligent design” in religion class.

Creationists are this society’s “the world is flat-ers”.

The Bible is not a book of science, we will loose souls amongst teh rational and atheists’ community if we pretend it is.

And of course evolution is not fully proven, that’s why its called the theroy of evolution, but the evidence we have so far is pointing to it rather strongly, and research is ongoing.

Let’s not make Catholics and Christians look like a bunch of primitive, uneducated idiots.

God started the ball of evolution rolling, knowing what would result.

God is not the great kickstarter. There is no Church teaching that verifies this and there is no scientific paper that verifies that.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I agree. There is nothing wrong with evolution. God just obviously chose to do it this way.

You know this how? There is no scientific evidence for God doing anything regarding this idea.

Peace,
Ed