Evolution and Creation: What to Teach Students?

[SeekingCatholic]

Thank you seekingcatholic. Your post demonstrates exactly what reggiem was talking about. The funny thing is, you can’t even see it.

What’s more, I don’t even care. If you are reduced to calling us zealots and implying our acceptance of evolution must be due to something wrong in our mental processes we have won the argument hands down.

 

[Camron]

Well…that was a big waste of time…think I’ll stick to less “passionate” threads next time.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The Barbarian, I wish you could attend the marvelous conference I’m participating in this weekend, with – as keynote speaker – Father Geroge Coyne, retired driector of the Vatican Observatory.

I’d love to be there. But I have a project, that I’ve been putting off for a long time. I’m in San Antonio this week. My wife and I are putting together a photoessay on the early missions in South Texas. The mission churches in San Antonio are particularly good shape, as they are part of a national park. I’m going tomorrow to work on the aqueduct, irrigation channels, and the grist mill.

Can’t do the interiors until Monday, of course. They are all still functioning parish churches. But they are amazingly beautiful.
The cathedral is undergoing a renovation also, and I hope to get a chance to record that.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Uh-oh. The evolution-is-perfect folks are going to be upset when they realize that calling someone a creationist is not actually an insult.

Ya think? Many people are proud of it. And there are forms of OE creationism that are not inconsistent with Genesis.

 

[kaab]

"“The Order, also known as the Brüder Schweigen or Silent Brotherhood, was a terrorist organization active in the United States between 1983 and 1984. The Order described themselves as a white nationalist revolutionary group, and are probably best known for the 1984 murder of radio talk show host Alan Berg.”

Is this your group?"

No, I wouldn’t be part of such a clown like fraternity. That is not the Order that I speak of. I hate Germans worse than you so-called Catholics, Germans are worse than Jews. You would have to delve a little deeper than 83-84 to know where I am coming from, as in the 30’s. It has nothing to do whatsoever with Germans or white supremacists or terror on a mass scale.

 

[kaab]

By the way, “The Order” that you are talking about is something that was started by a guy named Rockwell, who was connnected with the Manson family in some odd way. That is absolutely the most ridiculous connection I can think of and they should be taken out and shot. If he wasn’t dead already, I would make sure that Rockwell never lived to regret the day he ever called his bunch of fools The Order. It is akin to someone buying a Japanese sword over the internet and calling themselves a samurai.

 

[drpmjhess]

No, I wouldn’t be part of such a clown like fraternity. That is not the Order that I speak of. I hate Germans worse than you so-called Catholics, Germans are worse than Jews. You would have to delve a little deeper than 83-84 to know where I am coming from, as in the 30’s. It has nothing to do whatsoever with Germans or white supremacists or terror on a mass scale.

You sound like a very dangerous man or woman to be hating Germans, Jews and Catholics. Are you armed?

 

[garysibio]

It is disparaging to me that the truth can be manipulated in such obscene ways. As a true Catholic and a member not only of The Order but also of The Way, I am disgusted by all of this nonsense. Jesus is not my god , god is my god, I deny the whole story and even the existence of Jesus. All of you so-called “Christians” are going to burn in vicious hell for your sins against our one true God, God.

Did we not get enough sleep last night?

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Good point. These evolution threads on CAF are marked by some defenders of evolution who are entirely uncritical of evolutionary theory and who are passionate in their defense of Charles Darwin himself. The arguments in defense of both are given with such dogmatic certainty that one must conclude that these evolutionary apologists cannot admit the tiniest flaw in either the theory or the man.

I find that, in itself, remarkable. Evolution is defended with what must be considered a religious fervor. The theory is indeed “heavily flawed”. To then see evolutionary-defenders act as if the theory was so air-tight that it’s impossible to consider any of the numerous criticisms raised against it as plausible, only indicates how extreme the Darwinian-defense really is.

Even in defending Catholicism, which is a body of truth on an infinitely higher level than Darwinism, apologists know that one should admit areas where the teaching is not clear or could, in fact, be reformed. I see the Darwinists, however, as incapable of having any critical distance on the theory. It’s something as personal as religion. Any criticisms of Darwinism are met with the kind of outrage and ridicule that is reserved for when someone insults your wife or family memeber.

It’s that kind of extreme partisanship that is remarkable, to me.

I can fully understand that attitude for atheists. After all, Darwinism is the foundation for their stance against God. It’s their armor against religion and spirituality, therefore, there can’t be any real compromise or admission of the flaws in evolutionary theory.

But what about Catholics who are as passionate about Darwin as their atheist counterparts are?

Again, I don’t know. It’s a very obvious mental attribute though and it should be obvious to anyone who has a healthy distance from Darwinian propaganda to see.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Gary

 

[rossum]

You’re missing a very important point here that negates your entire argument. The system of classification which we use to categorize the natural world is a man-made system which has been imposed on the natural word. In anthropology they call this a folk classification.

The same point also negates your argument. You said “they’re still finches”. Since you now do not recognise “finch” as a natural classification, but only a man-made one, your argument also falls. If I am not allowed the Hominidae then you are not allowed the finches. The point is that the finches were different afterwards. The finches changed over time, which is what we expect from evolution - population genomes change over time.

In the time of the Old Testament, bats - which we call mammals - were lumped in with birds. This is not an error. It was just more relevant to the ancient Jews that bats had wings and flew and not so relevant that they had hair and produced milk to feed their children.

Agreed, the problem with Leviticus 11:19 is more one of translation than of anything substantial.

rossum

 

[ricmat]

What’s more, I don’t even care. If you are reduced to calling us zealots and implying our acceptance of evolution must be due to something wrong in our mental processes we have won the argument hands down.

I made no such statement that there was anything wrong with anyone’s mental processes - yours included.

However, many evolution-is-perfect folks have claimed those things about me. And as I’ve stated repeatedly, my sin is not in being a YEC, my sin is that I have a few doubts about the “theory of evolution” and only agree with the evolution-is-perfect folks 99% of the time.

You’re a new poster here, and you have yet to see the worst of this.

 

[garysibio]

The same point also negates your argument. You said “they’re still finches”. Since you now do not recognise “finch” as a natural classification, but only a man-made one, your argument also falls. If I am not allowed the Hominidae then you are not allowed the finches. The point is that the finches were different afterwards. The finches changed over time, which is what we expect from evolution - population genomes change over time.

Creationists do not argue that changes within a population do not exist. That would be absurd since we can easily see such changes. What we are saying is that these relatively minor changes cannot be used to infer the major changes needed to go from a single ancestor to all of the forms extant today.

Just to elaborate on my previous comments on taxonomy…

There are a little less than 900 species of birds found in the United States. Every year the American Ornithological Union issues corrections to the list. Each year about 8 or 10 new species are added as a result of deciding that what they used to think of as one species turns out to be two or what was thought to be two species turned out to be one. This shouldn’t be happening if species was a natural division rather than one forced onto the natural world.

Gary

 

[ricmat]

Uh-oh. The evolution-is-perfect folks are going to be upset when they realize that calling someone a creationist is not actually an insult.

Is this news to you, ricmat?

Ya think? Many people are proud of it. And there are forms of OE creationism that are not inconsistent with Genesis.

1. Is WHAT news to me?
2. Many people are proud of WHAT?

I’m not arguing here, it’s just that your posts are not clear.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

I made no such statement that there was anything wrong with anyone’s mental processes - yours included.

However, many evolution-is-perfect folks have claimed those things about me. And as I’ve stated repeatedly, my sin is not in being a YEC, my sin is that I have a few doubts about the “theory of evolution” and only agree with the evolution-is-perfect folks 99% of the time.

You’re a new poster here, and you have yet to see the worst of this.

Then I’ll appreciate not being called a dogmatic zealot, thank you very much. Scientific theories by definition cannot be “dogma” - although they can be supported by such a weight of evidence as to make their truth a moral certainty. I would put common descent in this category - I especially find the DNA evidence persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt. I would not put “random” mutation plus natural selection as the mechanism responsible for all genetic diversity in this category, at least not yet, nor would I put gradualism in this category (as opposed to punctuated equilibrium or saltationism). If this gets me on the bad side of the “evolution-is-perfect” folks, so be it. I’m quite convinced I can defend all my points of view based on the evidence.

 

[reggieM]

It would be nice for Catholicism if evolution were false.

You’ve exposed what has been unsaid by the evolutionary-defenders. This, at least, exposes the lies and cover-ups from the Darwinists who claim that evolution has zero impact on Catholicism.

You claim (you’re new to the topic so you don’t know what has already been claimed ad nauseam) that evolution does cause a problem for Catholicism and it would be “nice” if it was proven to be false.

This directly contradicts the claims of Catholic-Darwinists who say that the theory regards a subject as neutral as plumbing.

Since you’re new to the thread, you’ve let a bit of honesty leak out. Your Darwinist counterparts have not been able to do that much. They absolutely refuse to accept that Darwinism proposes any problem at all.

Yes, that is zealotry and extremism. You’ve proven it here with your admission that it would be nice for our faith if Darwinism was false. But again, we’ve seen no support for what you said in hundreds of posts from Darwinists.

As I said – this should be blatantly obvious to anyone. You fell right into it yourself, but you blithely skip over why it would be “nice for Catholicism” if Darwinism was false.

You also seemed to disagree with my characterization of some Darwinists (all of them here) who cannot accept any flaws in the theory at all and who respond with outrage and ridicule to any criticisms of the same (even criticisms coming from the Holy See). But instead of pointing to the many instances where Darwinists were objectively critical of the theory, you start arguing about how Creationists are dogmatic.

I’ll conclude that you agree with what I said but you think that the attitude of dogmatic-zealotry is fine for evolutionists because Creationists do it also.

Going along with this, you would need to admit (to be consistent) that Darwinists are no more objective than Creationists and any claims to “scientific neutrality” are just smoke-screens.

Again, I see that quite clearly in your own post – offered with emotion and fervor. You claim that this is defending the “Truth” as if evolutionary theory can be classified as a matter of “Truth” and not of speculation and guesswork which can (and does) change frequently.

 

[abu_kamoon]

“Gary, you don’t quite seem to understand how science works. In science everything is provisional and subject to correction. The Lamarckian theory of acquired characteristics was disproven by biologists precisely because it did not stand up to empirical tests.”

There seem to be two definitions of science floating around. My definition of science is truth proved by observation and experimentation using the Scientific Method. Today, many think that science is whatever the consensus of scientists come up with. I would call that Science Fiction. Some might think that THE WAR OF THE WORLDS was science when it was written, because it seemed scientific at the time. Racial concepts about “inferionr races” were accepted by “science” a hundred years ago. Most scientists believed them. Nazi scientists were still trying to prove this less than seventy years ago. But was it science?

To me, science is what supports technology. An airplane flies because of the engineering application of science. A witch doctor in some primitive tribe may have his own “scientific” explanation for why the “great silver bird” flies, but again, this is science fiction. Real science is based on observation and experimentation. It is not based on extrapolation. It is not based on phony artifacts planted by it’s advocates. It is not based on the best theory to explain a pre-conceived belief (for example, life came about by natural processes). Any fool can come up with a theory. And theories do not science, make. At least, not by MY definition of science.

Who am I to give MY definition. Really, I’m nobody. It just irritates me to see people who believe everything they are told, because they are afraid to question it. If evolution were true, it would have been believed for thousands of years. The fact is, evidence does not support evolution, nor does common sense. There is no mechanism for evolution (mutations are almost always harmful).

There is such a huge gap between humans, and any animal, other than the fact that we are all made up of the same elements and chemical processes. If in fact, humans descended from some simian-like creature, why are all the other simians so similar? Why the hugh gap between them and us? Why haven’t chimpanzees developed technology? They are supposed to be our nearest “relative”.

I don’t mind the ridicule. I just want to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Evolution is a farce.

 

[rossum]

Unless you believe in the spontaneous generation of life, God did it.

I disagree. All my Christian friends tell me that God is alive, so when God did whatever He did it was not the origin of life, but the first living thing creating the second living thing. We see living things making new living things all the time, so that is not particularly difficult to accept. It is how you get to that first living thing, i.e. God, that is the difficulty. I have never seen any satisfactory creationist explanation for the origin of the first living thing.

You are reading Scripture in a presumptuous way. First, there was nothing. Then, out of nothing, God created the earth. Then God called forth life. This is Genesis. Period. Nothing vague about it.

I think you are misinterpreting Genesis here. The Bible makes it clear the God is Himself alive, so God can only have called forth the second living thing in Genesis.

That life, and complex codes like DNA, arose spontaneously from dead rock.

From dead rock and chemistry and energy flow. Science does not yet have a complete answer, but currently it has more of an answer than creationism does.

I would also point out the dangers of trying to fit God into a gap in scientific knowledge. Since the purpose of science is to close any gaps, you are at risk of having to fit God into a smaller and smaller gap. To quote Dietrich Bonhoeffer “We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.”

rossum

 

[abu_kamoon]

Physics is measureable, testable and predictable. So is chemistry. So is electricity and electronics. So is navigation. So is aeronautics. These are sciences.

Evolution, something that nobody has ever seen, a theory that keeps changing. Evolution, one animal magically changing into another. And this is science?

 

[edwest2]

A few here seem to only tolerate the Catholic Church if it accepts what they think it should.

The pattern of discussion is quite consistent. First, calm explanation, and if that doesn’t work, angry explanation, and if that doesn’t work, resorting to labeling opponents fundamentalists/terrorists.

Then there are the attempts to frighten those who do not believe in evolution by telling them it is Church teaching. I am convinced that people who write this are not interested in Church teaching, only in selling evolution. There is no Church teaching about plumbing but if there were, I suspect sellers of the ToE would add it to the things we must believe.

We are also told that science and theology cannot mix, but that is not true either. It is presented as “Church teaching” that we must accept.

So, the pro evolution group is only engaged in a daily marketing campaign, nothing more.

Evolution is a ridiculous theory that assumes certain things happened. Take a car. Using the same basic chassis, any number of designs may be built upon it. Take earth, a great variety of animals were designed to live under the same gravity and atmospheric conditions. Miraculously, the plant life that grew around them was edible. They were designed to drink water.

The theory of evolution is about assumptions and a desire to make the observations fit an atheistic worldview.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SeekingCatholic]

You’ve exposed what has been unsaid by the evolutionary-defenders. This, at least, exposes the lies and cover-ups from the Darwinists who claim that evolution has zero impact on Catholicism.

What evidence do you have that these are “lies and cover-ups from the Darwinists” rather than an honest opinion? Put up or shut up. I will bet you have no evidence but you are just shooting your mouth off. These are the kind of puerile tactics I have seen more than once from “anti-Darwinists”.

You claim (you’re new to the topic so you don’t know what has already been claimed ad nauseam) that evolution does cause a problem for Catholicism and it would be “nice” if it was proven to be false.

This directly contradicts the claims of Catholic-Darwinists who say that the theory regards a subject as neutral as plumbing.

So. Is it impossible for there to be such a thing as a difference of opinion?

Since you’re new to the thread, you’ve let a bit of honesty leak out. Your Darwinist counterparts have not been able to do that much. They absolutely refuse to accept that Darwinism proposes any problem at all.

Yes, that is zealotry and extremism. You’ve proven it here with your admission that it would be nice for our faith if Darwinism was false. But again, we’ve seen no support for what you said in hundreds of posts from Darwinists.

Again, where is the evidence they truly think Darwinism proposes a problem but are simply lying about it.

It would also be nice BTW for Catholicism if the Donation of Constantine and the False Decretals were genuine, and if geocentrism were true, if a global flood were true, if the universe were young (since that appears in the Roman Martyrology), and if there was evidence outside the Gospel that it was really a Roman custom to release a prisoner at Passover, and if there weren’t evidence showing a correlation of brain activity with every mental process - even those supposed to be conducted by an immaterial intellect after data has been collected from the senses. But these things aren’t so, and it does no good to pretend otherwise.

As I said – this should be blatantly obvious to anyone. You fell right into it yourself, but you blithely skip over why it would be “nice for Catholicism” if Darwinism was false.

Sure it would be “nice” for Catholicism. It would spare theologians and philosophers the trouble of having to answer some very difficult questions. Yet I, as a scientist, am not going to bastardize the evidence and tell them what they want to hear just to make their jobs easier. Your attitude is that of attacking the messenger.

You also seemed to disagree with my characterization of some Darwinists (all of them here) who cannot accept any flaws in the theory at all and who respond with outrage and ridicule to any criticisms of the same (even criticisms coming from the Holy See). But instead of pointing to the many instances where Darwinists were objectively critical of the theory, you start arguing about how Creationists are dogmatic.

That’s just silly. If they thought the theory was heavily flawed they wouldn’t be Darwinists in the first place! Why would you expect them to be critical of it? Yet they are not, and cannot be, dogmatic in the sense Creationists are.

OTOH, there some really ignorant “critiques” of evolution floating around which are PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) which can be presented with a glib assurance on the 1001st time that this “proves” evolution to be a “hoax” and/or that “atheist scientists” are “hiding the evidence”. Ridicule is the appropriate response here, to ignorance being paraded as knowledge.

I’ll conclude that you agree with what I said but you think that the attitude of dogmatic-zealotry is fine for evolutionists because Creationists do it also.

Going along with this, you would need to admit (to be consistent) that Darwinists are no more objective than Creationists and any claims to “scientific neutrality” are just smoke-screens.

There ain’t no such thing as “scientific neutrality” strictly speaking; there are assumptions which need to be brought into the mix. This is OK, I claim, as long as is honest and open about what they are. One can’t even do Euclidean geometry without assumptions. And one can’t prove, strictly speaking, the inductive method (which science uses), to be valid. One can only get a a moral certainty (like we know the sun will rise tomorrow).

Again, I see that quite clearly in your own post – offered with emotion and fervor. You claim that this is defending the “Truth” as if evolutionary theory can be classified as a matter of “Truth” and not of speculation and guesswork which can (and does) change frequently.

The claim is that common descent (usually denoted the “fact” of evolution) can be proved to a moral certainty, using the methods and assumptions of science, while the exact way in which it happened (usually denoted the “method” of evolution), is still an open question.