T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Indeed, evolution is more firmly established than gravity. We can observe evolution and gravity at work, but we also know why evolution works.
We still don’t know why gravity works.
- Status
We still don’t know why gravity works.
B
buffalo
Guest
Let’s examine this claim for just a minute.
If creationism get’s more people into heaven versus science, how would it be more dangerous? People are losing their faith because it looks more rational to idolize science. That’s a fundamental educational issue. (Note - I am not a proponent of not looking for truth through science.)
B
buffalo
Guest
A typical Catholic school teaches science with kind of a soupy side helping of religion. In addition the push is always for academic and life achievement. When the kid comes out of the system material pursuit through job success is what wins out. If they can fit God in there then OK. But the lessons of how to live your life to get to heaven? Look around you - it’s obvious that contacepting for material gain is the practical solution.
Catholic schools have to get back to teaching kids how to get to heaven.
S
steveandersen
Guest
How do we know which gets more people into heaven?
Some creationists have a yes/no, all or nothing worldview
If a child is raised being taught that there is no accommodation between faith and reason there can be difficulties
You’ve lost me
B
buffalo
Guest
I would venture a guess that for 1800 years or so people were getting into heaven. Most of the civilized world was Catholic or at least Christian. Since the enlightenment and modernism there has been an obstinate rejection of God.How do we know which gets more people into heaven?
Some creationists have a yes/no, all or nothing worldview
If a child is raised being taught that there is no accommodation between faith and reason there can be difficulties
You’ve lost me
It is not necessary to be well versed in science to get to heaven.
G
Ghoti
Guest
My turtle is offended by your blasphemy.And, I assume you are also referring to having a reliable eyewitness. Just any old eyewitness may not do. But, then, how do you determine the reliability of the eyewitness? Another eyewitness, perhaps? Is it " …eyewitnesses all the way down"?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
(Barbarian points out that the most objectionable part of creationism is that it is an effective atheist-maker)
**"But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,”
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist."**
Glenn Morton, former YE creationist
home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
Good idea.
If shooting people makes them healthy, how would that be more dangerous? The problem is that many people raised to believe that creationism is a Christian belief, lose their faith when they realize it can’t possibly be true. It is one of the most common ways that people lose their faith.
Never saw one like that. But I’ve seen a lot of young people give up Christianity because someone told them that Christianity was creationism.
**"But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,”
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist."**
Glenn Morton, former YE creationist
home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
Indeed. The truth matters. But more than mangling the truth, YE creationism turns people from God. And that is a far greater evil.
S
SeekingCatholic
Guest
OK. Just as long as you allow your own premises to be likewise examined.
This is the very definition of pragmatism. What’s important is not whether or not creationism is true, but only if it gets more people into heaven. Which is to say, truth can be served by a lie. Which I totally deny.
And, the premise is certainly open to question. Does teaching creationism actually get more people into heaven? This is the Internet age, where everyone can learn about the massive evidence in favor of common descent and an old earth/universe. Students will realize, when they grow up, that those who preached that “there is not one shred of credible evidence favoring evolution” and that “evolution is a grand hoax of atheist scientists” were simply lying through their teeth. If they were lying about that, they could have been lying about other things as well. They have no more credibility in the students’ eyes. That will, and has, caused a crisis of faith in many.
What you call the “idolization” of science I call the realization that the argument to evidence trumps the argument to authority. This point has already been conceded with respect to the geocentrism/heliocentrism issue. Why are you not demanding that geocentrism be taught in Catholic schools, if geocentrism gets more people into heaven? Geocentrism is clearly more compatible with Catholic thought, was favored by the vast majority of Fathers who spoke on the issue, and was officially promoted by the Holy Office. It clearly makes more sense to have the earth as the center of the universe, rather than have the Son of God become man on an insignificant rock hurtling at high speed throughout space to no destination in particular. Why are you not calling acceptance of heliocentrism the “idolization” of science?
So if you’re going to ignore the argument to authority in the matter of heliocentrism, than I’m going to do the same with respect to evolution. The genetic evidence, including endogenous retroviral insertions in the same point in the genome, unitary pseudogenes with the same mutation, and so on, proves common descent to a moral certainty. It does no good to anyone to pretend otherwise.
G
Ghoti
Guest
Now there’s a Freudian slip…
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
And going to Hell. The phenomeon of unbelievers being dissuaded from Christianity because some Christians misconstrue science, is not a new phenomenon.
"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,… and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim”
I doubt if Christians ever made up a majority of the civilized world, unless you want to consider the Chinese and the Muslims uncivilized. That would be a mistake; they have often been more civilized than Christian Europe. The last few centuries have been fortunate for Christians. Don’t think that is how it was always, or how God has necessarily determined to keep it.
Unless St. Paul is wrong, that’s not a recent development, either.
Only if one lets such ignorance affect one’s faith.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
???
D
drpmjhess
Guest
This is not true in my diocese. Catholic schools teach both sound science and sound theology.
Petrus
G
garysibio
Guest
It’s a force. It can be measured. It doesn’t have to reflect light into our retinas in order to exist.
Don’t you think that your statement shows a lot of arrogance especially since you turned around and essentially said the same thing I did. I don’t accept your beliefs therefore I must not understand according to you. I understand what evolution is. It says that existing forms arose from previous forms by random mutations acted upon by natural selection. Obviously that’s a very stripped-down definition but I’m not going to write a book here.
Let’s try not to be so insulting.
Gary
G
garysibio
Guest
G
garysibio
Guest
D
drpmjhess
Guest
???
B
buffalo
Guest
Do they teach how to reason using both empirical data and non-empirical data?
G
garysibio
Guest
Creationism is dangerous because you have to believe in God to accept it. If there is a God, then, as His creation, we are answerable to Him and can’t just run around doing what we want. Belief in creationism leads to a belief in sin. If evolution is true then sin is just another behavior developed along the way and nothing to get concerned about.
Gary
B
buffalo
Guest
First off don’t lump Christian teaching with Catholic teaching. Catholic schools do not teach creationaism per se. They teach all is created by God. They teach science.
The point I am trying to make is they can be at odds with one another in a students mind when they should not be. I am making the argument that they need sound reasoning skills coupled with science, metaphysics and philosophy. It given this training they can see that faith and reason are not opposed.
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Gary, I’m not insulting you, but rather noting that you set up and demolish a straw person argument when you define evolution (and reject it) in a way that biologists don’t understand it. Biologists (100,000 of them) study how random mutations acted upon by natural selection lead to descent with modification from a common ancestor. Do you have a difficulty with that?
And the Barbarian is right: we know less about gravity – that mysterious “force” – than we do about natural selection. You don’t seem reluctant to embrace gravity, and yet God is not a measurable part of that equation either.
Petrus
- Status