Darwinism in schools?

[Gblat]

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.

Are you familiar with either science and it’s scope, or critical thinking applied to sufficient information?

Charles Darwin, to the end, was a religious man and ended his most famous work with a statement yet attributing Creation to God. and there were similar hypothesis and theories before Darwin. and no scientist would claim that Darwinism is “the ultimate truth.” Last time I checked, that was reserved as a description of God.

Ancient and contemporary religions, are in fact a proper area of study, in school, even for Catholics, if comparative religion is of interest to them. Contrary to what many unthinkingly assume, evolutionary theory did not begin in 1859 with Charles Darwin and his famous work. Rather, evolution-like ideas had existed since the times of the Greeks, and had been in and out of favor in the periods between ancient Greece and Victorian England. By Darwin’s time the idea of “descent with modification” - wasn’t very controversial, and several other evolutionary theories had already been proposed, including one that went upward from man to include angels. Darwin may stand at the beginning of a modern tradition, but he is also a culmination of an ancient speculation.

Also, while we can com to certain conclusions from the fossil record, if we were to teach Creationism in schools, we would have to choose which Creation story to present, or we would have to present many of them each with equal value, so as not to politically offend any stakeholders. So far, it is better to understand that science has a province which is different than religion, and that when we are in a science class, that is what we will deal with. Or we can turn our science classes into religion classes and have all kinds of lawsuits from so many factions.

If you, for personal reasons, don’t wish to make use of the very useful ideas that have developed from expanding and correcting Mr. Darwin’s excellent and comprehensive work, which I myself see meritorious without its needing to addressing the origin of the Universe, that is fine, and your choice. But really, it is unwise to attempt to distribute your own paucity of understanding in this matter over those who have a genuine thirst for knowledge, mundane though it might seem to be.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

adding novel features or becoming a new species. Bacteria adapting are still bacteria.

But there are many different species of bacteria. Do you maintain that no matter how long a time span is involved, one species of bacteria will never adapt and adapt until they become another species of bacteria?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…I can help Catholics by providing them with clear references to Church teachings, including statements from various Popes, that tell them who they really are as human beings.

Then maybe you can give me a link to somewhere on vatican.va that says that the Church opposes the teaching of evolution. I asked buffalo but he has not given one.

 

[rossum]

adding novel features or becoming a new species.

The “novel feature” bit is still somewhat woolly, you still need to distinguish between your “adaptation” and “novel feature”. New species is fine.

Bacteria adapting are still bacteria.

And here you completely blow all you biological credibility. So you have no problems with humans evolving from fish because “Eukaryotes are still Eukaryotes”? All of life is divided into three major lineages: Eubacteria, Archaea and Eukaryotes (with viruses on the side). Every single multicellular organism is a Eukaryote, along with a number of protists like Amoeba and Paramecium. Your “still bacteria” encompasses the Eubacteria and Archaea. We are more closely related to an Amoeba, or a Ginkgo, that the Eubacteria are to the Archaea. You are showing here that you lack the necessary knowledge to discuss this subject properly.

There are millions of different of species of bacteria. Here are a few of them:

And you thought it was just fluff? New bacteria found in belly-buttons

Scientists have found 1,400 strains of bacteria lurking in human belly buttons. The discovery was made during a study in which 95 volunteers allowed a team of microbiologists to gaze at their navels and take swabs from inside their belly buttons.

When the team behind the project checked the samples against a database of existing bacteria, they found 662 unrecognised strains, which might even be new species.

Source: Independent

Far better to check that what you are posting is actually what you think you are posting. “Buffalo has no problem with humans evolving from an extinct ape, because mammals are still mammals.”

rossum

 

[Farsight001]

It was post # 113.

Respectfully, I have learned nothing from this thread, except from buffalo.

I have seen the same evo-evangelism on this forum for years. And I’ve seen too many posters who come here to check up on what Catholics believe. Even the lowest level of dissent must be dealt with by the ‘insistence argument.’

For myself, I am not handing out flyers in front of school buildings to students telling them that this or that is wrong, nor do I belong to an organized group that tries to do the same. I am one person. I have good, supportable reasons to believe what I believe. If you don’t think so, it will have no effect whatsoever on scientific research or education. I do hope, however, I can help Catholics by providing them with clear references to Church teachings, including statements from various Popes, that tell them who they really are as human beings. Perhaps a few teachers reading this will look into this more closely and/or learn that there is other information out there that is worth their time to consider.

The regular ‘policing’ of sites like this is strange and suggests that universal acceptance is the goal.

Peace,
Ed

How could one have possibly learned something at all, let alone a lot, from a man who can’t even define terms he made?

 

[rossum]

Only problem with that is Behemoth had “a tail the size of a cedar tree.”

Or else “tail” was a euphemism for an anatomical feature confined to male animals. The same verse refers to his “stones”. Another anatomical feature confined to male animals.

Job 40:17 “He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.”

rossum

 

[rossum]

Let’s focus on a targeted search. To search for that particular sequence will take how long?

I am not searching for “a particular sequence”. I am searching for “any sequence that fits the bill”. In the case of life, we know that there are a very very large number of different ways to be alive. Unless we can somehow quantify the number of ways reasonably accurately then we are not going to be able to do any reasonably accurate probability calculations.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Or else “tail” was a euphemism for an anatomical feature confined to male animals. The same verse refers to his “stones”. Another anatomical feature confined to male animals.

Job 40:17 “He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.”

rossum

And here is the Bible/Science paradox in clear example. The Bible is not and should not be treated as a science book. The Bible can and should be treated as a science book. Strange.

Peace,
Ed

 

[johnnyjones]

No it didn’t. Read your bible. It had a tail that “swayed like a cedar”. There is nothing anywhere about it being the size of one. That’s another among thousands of creationist lies you have fallen for.

True , moved like one, I stand corrected. The cedar trees of scripture are all described as very large.

 

[Farsight001]

True , moved like one, I stand corrected. The cedar trees of scripture are all described as very large.

And the size of a cedar tree in the bible has what, exactly, to do with moving/swaying like a cedar tree? One need not be the size of a cedar to sway like it.

 

[Farsight001]

And here is the Bible/Science paradox in clear example. The Bible is not and should not be treated as a science book. The Bible can and should be treated as a science book. Strange.

Peace,
Ed

Where in the world did you get the idea that he was trying to treat it like a science book?!

 

[johnnyjones]

And you haven’t been uncivil? Speaking down to me and others just for having a differing view, claiming superior knowledge, acting high and mighty, blatantly twisting the meaning of what other posters say, posting misinformation about other posters, talking like you are privy to amazing knowledge that hundreds of thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives to the subject somehow missed? I’m blunt and use the words I mean. You’re more subtle. It doesn’t mean you’re being more civil. Incivility is found just as easily in words as it is in tone and attitude. Don’t get annoyed just because I called you out on it. It’s my Christian obligation to do so.

This is not very Christian -like at all. I think a large amount of “superior knowledge” has been claimed on your end. As a matter of fact I’ve been accused of having little or no knowledge. “Lied to”, “disgrace to my religion”, are just some of the words coming from you and your comrades. This is the incivility found in WORDS. It’s time to move on.

 

[edwest2]

Then maybe you can give me a link to somewhere on vatican.va that says that the Church opposes the teaching of evolution. I asked buffalo but he has not given one.

Where did anyone state that? Apparently, different standards apply to different posters. For some, Pope this said that and since it supported the theory, I am going to post that the Church accepts it. Then, another Pope says something negative and, boy, watch out. The Church is demonized, called anti-science, etc. If some people don’t accept Church teaching, then whatever gets posted will not move them.

I pray the Holy Spirit of God does move some people.

“Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gblat]

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.

I found it: (emphasis mine)

Augustine of Hippo on the literal interpretation of Genesis:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian.* It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.* In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

 

[Baelor]

So dinosaurs were created out of thin air? And redwoods and humans too? It is not possible that they branched off from a parent species? I want to understand your beliefs.

Buffalo, please respond to these questions. Your piano analogy is incomprehensible to me. Please refrain from using anything other than literal statements so I can understand.

Assume that species did branch off from other species. What would adequate proof be for you to accept this?

Buffalo, please answer this question.

That is not an answer to the question I asked. By what criteria do you compare prior state to current state? What would make something more or less than or equal to 1 given your assignment thereof to the current state?

Buffalo, please answer this question.

buffalo:

We do not have direct observation at the OOL or early life at all. We cannot observe the past, that is why evolution is philosophy

Evolution is not applicable only to early life. We can observe species becoming different species.

The Thread is Darwinism in schools. I submit only empirical science in the science classroom, that is observable, repeatable and predictable (gravity qualifies). ID and evolution philosophies in the mandatory philosophy class.

Evolution is clearly not in the realm of philosophy, because it employs the scientific method and is based on observable, empirical fact. This is the definition of a science.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

“Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html

Peace,
Ed

This seems to rather support evolution than to deny it. For the “slim of the earth” is a more primitive form of life.

But I must say that after reading the quotes in post #113 I quite agree that the language used is unnecessarily philosophical and has no place in a science textbook.

 

[Ion]

Darwinism is a bunch of idiotic assumtions, it is science by agreement and not by experiment;
the most frequent statement of evolutionists proclaiming something is “scientist agree on…”
They are a bunch of liars that hold on for each others theories…Often times they know something is not ok but they simply don’t care…no experiment no conexion to reality no accountability; and when they change something they dont cry over the non-truth that was proclaimed before, no way; they are proud and declare " a new revolutionary discovery…"???
Its working like this: from an error into another towards the final …truth?

 

[vera_dicere]

Did Adam look as God planned?

You’re operating under teh assumption there was an actual “Adam”. The creation stories in Genesis [there are two remember] are symbolic. Adam is simply the representation of the first human to have awareness of God.

Did God know how he would look? Of course he would, this is God we’re talking about. He created the beginning and from there he knew every little turn those genes would take, from what gene would cause dark hair to what gene would cause peopel to be really tall.

Think of those stories as being age appropriate. If a four year old came up to you and asked where babies come from, would you tell them? Would you give them all the mechanical details? Tellign them about sperm and egg and erections? Of course you wouldn’t, you’d tell them some cutesty story about “special mummy and daddy hugs” and maybe storks.

That’s what Genesis’ creation stories are. They’re the cutesy special hug story. Because does anyone here really think that those essentially illterate goat herders would understand the science behind evolution? People here in 2012 seem to have trouble grasping it.

Even St. Augustine didn’t think the story of Adam and Eve was literal; going so far as to make statements we should’n’t really waste our time over it. The bible isn’t a book about creation, its a boook about salvation.

 

[Gblat]

Darwinism is a bunch of idiotic assumtions, it is science by agreement and not by experiment;
the most frequent statement of evolutionists proclaiming something is “scientist agree on…”
They are a bunch of liars that hold on for each others theories…Often times they know something is not ok but they simply don’t care…no experiment no conexion to reality no accountability; and when they change something they dont cry over the non-truth that was proclaimed before, no way; they are proud and declare " a new revolutionary discovery…"???
Its working like this: from an error into another towards the final …truth?

Augustine of Hippo on the literal interpretation of Genesis:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

 

[Ion]

When God said somehing, and in Book of Genesis it is written exactly what He said, then that really happened…
Theory of evolution has at his center death, and is a nonsense because in it living things has to die in order to survive?In it there is no explanation for the fist cell and no explanation for death of old age?Since when there is accepted death as part of Divine creation?
I think that something like theory of evolution happened after the Adam’s sin, creatures dying of old age etc.Some estimate 95% of all the creatures that lived on earth have dissapeared…and evolutiun brings a “growing environment”???