Darwinism in schools?

[Farsight001]

Well, you didn’t read The Bible; After the sin, God kept in touch with Adam, Cain, Abel etc…
“Death entered the world”; Jesus Christ died on cross…
Your “spiritual death” is a meaningless blablabla

Well that’s insulting and uncalled for. I’ve read the bible multiple times. My current project is transcribing it by hand, which I can’t find record of any other individual person doing since the invention of the printing press, so don’t tell me I don’t read my bible.

Now address my argument instead of repeating yourself again. I know death entered the world. I already explained twice that it was spiritual death. You have offered no argument whatsoever otherwise except to call it “meaningless blablabla”, which is just plain childish.

 

[Ion]

Animals cannot form in the womb/egg without death. For example, anything with separate digits is formed by growing a continuous hand, and the cells forming the web between the digits dying, to let the digits separate. Animals with webbed feet, like frogs or ducks, do not have this die-off and so retain the webbing between their digits.

For mammals, the living cells of the placenta form in the womb and then die after the birth. You cannot separate life from some sort of death, at the very least the death of living cells.

Or are you saying that none of the animals created before the Fall were placental mammals?

rossum

Sorry to tell you, and to the other guy with “spiritual death”, that you have no ideea what death is…Ask an apologist…

 

[rossum]

Sorry to tell you, and to the other guy with “spiritual death”, that you have no ideea what death is…Ask an apologist…

Why? Death is a well defined biological process. Why would I ask a theologian about biology?

rossum

 

[Farsight001]

Sorry to tell you, and to the other guy with “spiritual death”, that you have no ideea what death is…Ask an apologist…

I have. It was Dr. Ted Sri who taught this to me. Dino Durango, a sort of rising star among apologists also affirmed this too, as has Scott Hahn in one of his books.

Perhaps you need to figure out what an apologist even is first.

Now grow up and respond to what I said instead of running from it.

 

[edwest2]

I wish people would, but Creationists seem to want to insert their non-science into science classrooms. I have no problem with creationism (OEC or YEC) being taught in comparative religion classes.

I do not attack Christianity. I attack certain ludicrously bad interpretations of the Bible, which tend to weaken Christianity in the eyes of anyone with a little scientific knowledge. Saint Thomas Aquinas said:
“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”
YEC, and to a lesser extent OEC, exposes Holy Scripture to the ridicule of unbelievers.

rossum

The key words are “with certainty.” The Church has the final say on this matter since it has a Pontifical Academy Of Sciences and the truth of Divine Revelation.

As to your last sentence: Why bother any Catholics here? Are Catholics initiating ‘teach the controversy?’ If not, it would be better for you to contact the groups involved.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Curious_Seed]

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.

:tiphat:

If a fact is indisputable reality, then:

Evolution is not a fact.

Jesus as God is not a fact.

Your existence is not a fact.

Truly, the more we know, the more we know we don’t know; the more we know, the more we know how much we don’t know.

So, the use of the word “fact” grows more and more tenuous in meaning and applicability.

But, should the schools teach the Theory of Evolution?

First, let me ask you if you learned about the Theory of Evolution, yourself?

Why did you do that?

Is it worth studying?

Of course, it is.

It ranks among the foremost of substantial concepts of human history and needs to be taught.

But, instead of using the method you used to inform yourself, in order to teach others, we should formalize the professional instruction of it, for benefit of our students.

Creationism, on the other hand, has no justification to be taught.

 

[mytruepower2]

I wish people would, but Creationists seem to want to insert their non-science into science classrooms. I have no problem with creationism (OEC or YEC) being taught in comparative religion classes.

I do not attack Christianity. I attack certain ludicrously bad interpretations of the Bible, which tend to weaken Christianity in the eyes of anyone with a little scientific knowledge. Saint Thomas Aquinas said:
“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”
YEC, and to a lesser extent OEC, exposes Holy Scripture to the ridicule of unbelievers.

rossum

Oh, I agree with Saint Thomas Aquinas, and with the point that special creationism should not be taught as science. God is utterly unmeasurable, and is therefore not verifiable using science alone.

The proofs of God’s existence should be saved for philosophy class, which is a separate subject.

Still, one doesn’t combat inappropriate creationism in science classrooms by advancing inappropriate darwinism in science classrooms. If anything, this probably makes militant creationists more aggressive, because they rightly see the religious mentality of many darwinists as a threat to their children.

We can agree on one thing. None of this should be taught in grade school science.

 

[Farsight001]

Oh, I agree with Saint Thomas Aquinas, and with the point that special creationism should not be taught as science. God is utterly unmeasurable, and is therefore not verifiable using science alone.

The proofs of God’s existence should be saved for philosophy class, which is a separate subject.

Still, one doesn’t combat inappropriate creationism in science classrooms by advancing inappropriate darwinism in science classrooms. If anything, this probably makes militant creationists more aggressive, because they rightly see the religious mentality of many darwinists as a threat to their children.

We can agree on one thing. None of this should be taught in grade school science.

Good thing no one is advancing inappropriate Darwinism in science class rooms. In fact, no one is really advancing Darwinism of any kind in any classroom. They teach evolution. There is a difference. They do not rightly see the religious mentality of many darwinists as a threat to their children because real darwinists are crackpot fools who don’t understand evolution anymore than Creationists and certainly don’t teach it to children.

 

[mytruepower2]

Good thing no one is advancing inappropriate Darwinism in science class rooms. In fact, no one is really advancing Darwinism of any kind in any classroom. They teach evolution. There is a difference. They do not rightly see the religious mentality of many darwinists as a threat to their children because real darwinists are crackpot fools who don’t understand evolution anymore than Creationists and certainly don’t teach it to children.

No. You’re wrong. Children are taught darwinism from almost the moment they first enter a science class. The whole notion of evolution being fact, rather than theory, is a forced element of every science class I’ve ever been in in my life, tainting every last conclusion that people have drawn.

You make a valid point when you say that darwinism and evolution are two different things, but the difference between the two is not easily understood by most children, nor indeed by most of the science teachers who I’ve met.

When I say “there are many common genes between animal x and animal y, indicating that they may share a common progenitor,” I’m teaching evolution.

When I say “scientists have already deduced a great deal about the shape and behavior patterns of the missing link,” I’m teaching darwinism.

Additionally, whenever a child asks why birds fly, and is told about their evolutionary connection to dinosaurs, as though it were a proven fact, this also is darwinism. Charles Darwin was a very bright man, who acknowledged that there were weaknesses in his theory, which needed to be ironed out. Any evolutionary teacher or biologist who refuses to acknowledge this is a darwinist; not an evolutionist.

Furthermore, unless you know a majority of the people in the world, and can read their thoughts, I wonder how you can deduce whether they see darwinism in schools as a threat. Most of the people I know say they’re a little worried about it.

 

[Farsight001]

No. You’re wrong. Children are taught darwinism from almost the moment they first enter a science class. The whole notion of evolution being fact, rather than theory, is a forced element of every science class I’ve ever been in in my life, tainting every last conclusion that people have drawn.

Darwinism is a pseudo-racist, eugenics-promoting philosophy that encourages survival of the fittest. It is not the same thing as evolution and evolution being taught as a fact is not the same thing as teaching Darwinism.

You make a valid point when you say that darwinism and evolution are two different things, but the difference between the two is not easily understood by most children, nor indeed by most of the science teachers who I’ve met.

From my vantage point, the difference is very very easily understood by most children. It is adult creationists who conflate the two, and, imo, they do so intentionally to cast doubt on evolution…

When I say “scientists have already deduced a great deal about the shape and behavior patterns of the missing link,” I’m teaching darwinism.

That’s not Darwinism. That’s, as it says, deducing. It’s not, strictly speaking, science either, but to get Darwinism from such a statement is absolutely ludicrous. You also seem to be laboring under the delusion that the “missing link” still exists. This hasn’t been true for decades.

Additionally, whenever a child asks why birds fly, and is told about their evolutionary connection to dinosaurs, as though it were a proven fact, this also is darwinism.

This is basic evolution and it pretty much is a proven fact. There is nothing about this that relates to a pseudo-racist eugenics promoting philosophy.

Charles Darwin was a very bright man, who acknowledged that there were weaknesses in his theory, which needed to be ironed out.

And he lived 150 years ago. We’ve ironed things out since then.

Any evolutionary teacher or biologist who refuses to acknowledge this is a darwinist; not an evolutionist.

bull****. This is the no true scotsman fallacy. It has no merit or basis in reality. You are applying labels at your personal whim based on your personal standards to do little more than deride anyone you personally label as such.

Furthermore, unless you know a majority of the people in the world, and can read their thoughts, I wonder how you can deduce whether they see darwinism in schools as a threat. Most of the people I know say they’re a little worried about it.

Oh, I have no doubt that some people are worried. I didn’t say no one was. I said no one RIGHTLY was, because the ones who are worried clearly don’t have a grasp on the difference.

 

[rossum]

No. You’re wrong. Children are taught darwinism from almost the moment they first enter a science class. The whole notion of evolution being fact, rather than theory, is a forced element of every science class I’ve ever been in in my life, tainting every last conclusion that people have drawn.

Gravity is a fact: things fall down.
Gravity is also a theory. The theory of gravity explains why things fall down. We used to use Newton’s explanation (theory), but now we use Einstein’s explanation (theory).

Evolution is a fact: bacteria, insects and plants all evolve resistance to antibiotics, insecticides and herbicides.
Evolution is also a theory. We used to use Darwin’s explantion (theory), then we included Mendel’s genetics and later we incorporated all the new information from DNA sequencing. The explanation (theory) we have now is very different from the original proposal by Darwin.

When I say “scientists have already deduced a great deal about the shape and behavior patterns of the missing link,” I’m teaching darwinism.

Why? Us and chimps have identical genes for Cytochrome-C. Other animals have different genes for their versions of Cytochrome-C. There are about 2.3 x 10^93 different ways to make a working Cytochrome-C. Evolution is a perfectly good explanation of why us and chimpanzees beat the odds.

Additionally, whenever a child asks why birds fly, and is told about their evolutionary connection to dinosaurs, as though it were a proven fact, this also is darwinism.

Birds are theropod dinosaurs. They meet all the criteria for that classification. Your disbelief will not change that.

Charles Darwin was a very bright man, who acknowledged that there were weaknesses in his theory, which needed to be ironed out. Any evolutionary teacher or biologist who refuses to acknowledge this is a darwinist; not an evolutionist.

All scientific theories are provisional. Newton’s theory of gravity was provisional, and has been replaced by Einstein’s theory. In its turn Einstein’s theory will be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity. Every scientific theory is provisional. A good science teacher will teach that. There is nothing special about the theory of evolution.

rossum

 

[Biblepoe]

Gravity is a fact: things fall down.
Gravity is also a theory. The theory of gravity explains why things fall down. We used to use Newton’s explanation (theory), but now we use Einstein’s explanation (theory).

Pastafarians such as myself reject the unproven theory of gravity in favor of intelligent falling, so not all are going to buy into this argument. I’m OK with children being taught about gravity, so long as some time is also given to intelligent falling as well.

Also, a lot of my fellow Flat Earth Society members would dispute gravity as well.

 

[buffalo]

I thought tenure was to protect freedom of teachers. Why did we need a law? What use is tenure then?

In any case I support it.

Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee’s governor says he will let a law take effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.

Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without his signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn’t change scientific standards currently taught in Tennessee.

Supporters say the measure would help students think critically.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law

 

[LeafByNiggle]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee’s governor says he will let a law take effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.

The relevant words from the actual bill are:

Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught. Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

This looks like an unnecessary and toothless bill. I don’t think it opens the door to intelligent design being presented in a science class. A school board could just determine that the particulars of intelligent design do not qualify as objectively scientific. And if the courts uphold that interpretation, then what difference does this bill make? At best this bill just formalizes the informal expectations we have of good science teachers anyway.

 

[Farsight001]

I thought tenure was to protect freedom of teachers. Why did we need a law? What use is tenure then?

In any case I support it.

Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee’s governor says he will let a law take effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.

Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without his signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn’t change scientific standards currently taught in Tennessee.

Supporters say the measure would help students think critically.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law

Amusingly, this bill accomplishes nothing you wish it to. It says that teachers may present weaknesses of evolution. Ok. You know the flyleaf in the front of the textbook? That’s where the weaknesses are in a clear and concise list. Seriously - when describing weaknesses of evolution there is little more to say than we wish we had more and better preserved fossils or complete DNA strands to work with. That’s about it. Thank God most science teachers understand this.

 

[Biblepoe]

I thought tenure was to protect freedom of teachers. Why did we need a law? What use is tenure then?

In any case I support it.

Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee’s governor says he will let a law take effect April 20 that protects teachers who allow students to criticize evolution and other scientific theories, such as global warming.

Republic Gov. Bill Haslam had said previously he would probably sign the bill. But on Tuesday he said he would let the law take effect without his signature, adding he believes the legislation doesn’t change scientific standards currently taught in Tennessee.

Supporters say the measure would help students think critically.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Tenn. Bill on Evolution and Teaching to Become Law

Does this bill also protect those teachers who teach intelligent falling instead of gravity (or at least give each equal time)?

If so, I’m all for it.

 

[edwest2]

The relevant words from the actual bill are:

This looks like an unnecessary and toothless bill. I don’t think it opens the door to intelligent design being presented in a science class. A school board could just determine that the particulars of intelligent design do not qualify as objectively scientific. And if the courts uphold that interpretation, then what difference does this bill make? At best this bill just formalizes the informal expectations we have of good science teachers anyway.

The expectations of teachers are formalized, if nothing else then by the textbooks themselves. However, you ignore the fact that some teachers can and do gloss over the subject, law or no law. Does it open the door to Intelligent Design in classrooms? Of course it does. It is a valid criticism.

This issue did not come out of nowhere:

livescience.com/11656-13-biology-teachers-advocate-creationism-class.html

Again, I am not advocating adding religion to science classes, but it needs to be understood why others are, or are considering it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

It is a valid criticism.

Like hell it is. ID advocates have claimed adamantly and repeatedly from the start that ID is a science, not just a criticism of evolution. Under that guise, ID would certainly not be allowed to be taught under this law. In addition, since ID is junk science that does not make predictions, nor test them and do experiments, it’s not a criticism at all, valid or otherwise, but rather the political movement of a minority of prideful jerks who have managed to put a blindfold on their own faces without realizing it.

Again, I am not advocating adding religion to science classes, but it needs to be understood why others are, or are considering it.

It’s understood just fine why people are trying to do this. They’re prideful deceptive carpheads who arrogantly think they know better with no education than the experts who have dedicated their lives to it.

 

[buffalo]

Definition of Intelligent Design

                                      What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

                  See [New World Encyclopedia](http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Intelligent_design) entry on intelligent design.
           
                                                **Is intelligent design the same as creationism?**

                                      No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an  effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature  acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product  of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected  process such as natural selection acting on random variations.  Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how  the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design  starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what  inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the  scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern  biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through  science is supernatural.                     
                 Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge  the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of  Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of  intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees  the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent  design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to  conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers,  it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit  intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design  is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who  wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the  merits of its case. 					
                     	        
           
                                                **Is intelligent design a scientific theory?**

                                      Yes. The scientific method is commonly described  as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments,  and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that  intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI).   Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it  will contain high levels of CSI.  Scientists then perform experimental  tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and  specified information.  One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible  complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally  reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of  their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity  in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=11701

 

[Biblepoe]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=11701

Is this a joke? Seriously, there is a reason why ~99.99999% of PhD biologists believe that common descent has been demonstrated, and it’s not because of some sinister conspiracy. To actually learn about the most robust and accurate model in biology, evolution, I suggest you read some of the work of Dr. Ken Miller, a Catholic, such as the book Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul.

With regard to 1, how would or could something be determined to be “irreducibly complex.” Keep in mind that going from, “I cannot think of how x could serve any function with fewer parts” to “therefore, x does not serve any function with fewer parts,” is to commit a fallacy called an argument from ignorance, which, when used in an attempt to demonstrate that a god exists, is dubbed “god of the gaps.”

Number 2 is outright lying when it says, “Forms tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly without any precursors.” Even wikipedia’s page on the matter is a great place to start.

With regard to number 3, geneticists are in agreement that genetics very strongly proves common descent.

With regard to 4, there is a lot of junk DNA that confirms common descent.