Evolution In The Classroom

  • Thread starter Thread starter ctconnor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ctconnor said:
Nice post!I guess that’s what I was trying to say. I’m also not interested in religion being pushed in the classroom. Is it pushing religion if a scientist says he see’s evidence of intelligence behind our evolution? If it isn’t, then why can’t the “alternative” to randomness be presented. As long as he/she isn’t pushing a particular faith I wouldn’t have a problem.
Click to expand...
The big issue with ID is that it is religion. Seriously, watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

It’s long, but very VERY informative about who it is that is actually pushing the ID movement. The speakers is a Roman Catholic mind you, and he discusses in excruciating detail why ID has been completely and utterly demolished as a scientific theory. He also gives quotes by it’s proponents where they openly say that not teaching ID is akin to rejecting God. Even the ID textbook “Of Pandas and People” which is the ID textbook being touted is tainted… it used to be a creationist textbook. In fact (this is mentioned in the above video) They did a comparison and they literally just replaced “creator” with “Desginer” throughout the book!

Here’s a graph of the wording:

So in short, ID is creationism… PERIOD. All of it’s supposed scientific evidence has been thoroughly debunked even if those supporting ID refuse to accept said evidence. I don’t mind such ideas being discussed, but certainly not in a science class anymore than I think french should be taught in math class.
 
liquidpele said:
The big issue with ID is that it is religion. Seriously, watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

It’s long, but very VERY informative about who it is that is actually pushing the ID movement. The speakers is a Roman Catholic mind you, and he discusses in excruciating detail why ID has been completely and utterly demolished as a scientific theory. He also gives quotes by it’s proponents where they openly say that not teaching ID is akin to rejecting God. Even the ID textbook “Of Pandas and People” which is the ID textbook being touted is tainted… it used to be a creationist textbook. In fact (this is mentioned in the above video) They did a comparison and they literally just replaced “creator” with “Desginer” throughout the book!

Here’s a graph of the wording:

So in short, ID is creationism… PERIOD. All of it’s supposed scientific evidence has been thoroughly debunked even if those supporting ID refuse to accept said evidence. I don’t mind such ideas being discussed, but certainly not in a science class anymore than I think french should be taught in math class.
Click to expand...
Look, it is really simple. Humans know design when we see it. ID is an attempt to formulize it. We know design exists, or do you deny it exists?
 
buffalo said:
Look, it is really simple. Humans know design when we see it.
Click to expand...
“I know it when I see it” is not a scientific test.

Some claims fall within science, some don’t. The claim that God created the universe is not currently within the purview of science. It may never be. As long as it isn’t, it doesn’t belong in a public school science classroom.
buffalo said:
ID is an attempt to formulize it.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not. It’s an attempt to do an end-run around the Lemon Test.
 
gearhead said:
“I know it when I see it” is not a scientific test.

Some claims fall within science, some don’t. The claim that God created the universe is not currently within the purview of science. It may never be. As long as it isn’t, it doesn’t belong in a public school science classroom.

No, it’s not. It’s an attempt to do an end-run around the Lemon Test.
Click to expand...
Do you deny design exists?
 
buffalo said:
Do you deny design exists?
Click to expand...
Assuming that you’re not talking about design by humans or animals…

Depends what you mean by “design”.

If you mean structure that was created in a specific way deliberately by an intelligence, then yes, I do.

If you mean “design” as in the structure of a thing (similar to the way Dan Dennett uses the term), then sure, design exists.

Edit: what does any of this have to do with the motives of the ID movement? Have you read the “wedge” document?
 
gearhead said:
Assuming that you’re not talking about design by humans or animals…

Depends what you mean by “design”.

If you mean structure that was created in a specific way deliberately by an intelligence, then yes, I do.

If you mean “design” as in the structure of a thing (similar to the way Dan Dennett uses the term), then sure, design exists.
Click to expand...
How do we recognize design?
 
gearhead said:
That’s the question that ID tried to tackle, and spectacularily failed to come up with a scientific way to answer it.

BTW - apparently I was too slow with my edit in my last post, so here it is again:
Click to expand...
Yes I read the wedge document. So what? So the motives of atheists are to disprove God. So the motives of evolutionists is to prove evolution. What do motives have to do with truth? Because someone has a motive prevents them from discovering a truth?

The question stands - how do we recognize design?
 
buffalo said:
Yes I read the wedge document. So what? So the motives of atheists are to disprove God. So the motives of evolutionists is to prove evolution. What do motives have to do with truth? Because someone has a motive prevents them from discovering a truth?
Click to expand...
You’re moving the goalposts. All I’m doing is pointing out that your earlier point was incorrect:
buffalo said:
Humans know design when we see it. ID is an attempt to formulize it.
Click to expand...
ID isn’t an attempt to formulize anything. It’s an attempt to repackage “creation science” in a way that will let it slip past the Lemon Test and into public school science classrooms.
buffalo said:
The question stands - how do we recognize design?
Click to expand...
How is this relevant? ID isn’t about recognizing design. It’s about assuming design from the outset.
 
gearhead said:
You’re moving the goalposts. All I’m doing is pointing out that your earlier point was incorrect:

ID isn’t an attempt to formulize anything. It’s an attempt to repackage “creation science” in a way that will let it slip past the Lemon Test and into public school science classrooms.

How is this relevant? ID isn’t about recognizing design. It’s about assuming design from the outset.
Click to expand...
Let us start anew. Forget what you know about ID. Let us start with a fresh slate, just two regular guys musing about things.

We agree design exists.

How do we know it when we see it?
 
buffalo said:
Let us start anew. Forget what you know about ID. Let us start with a fresh slate, just two regular guys musing about things.

We agree design exists.

How do we know it when we see it?
Click to expand...
We don’t. The first pulsar star we saw we thought was a signal from intelligent life. Human opinion on what is designed and what is not is irrelevant to science, which is what ID claims it is.
 
This is the way I see it: God didn’t give us science for the purpose of proving He exists or does not exist. He gave us science to understand the natural world of His creation around us. God did not give us the Creation story or the Bible so that we can understand the natural world of His creation around us. He gave us the Creation story and the Bible so that we can study and understand the moral and theological truths of Himself and His creation. Neither of these facts detracts from Science or Faith. Correct? For a Christian, they do not need to be able to be put together and make perfect sense together right now. They just need to be able to not contradict or disprove the other, which they don’t.
 
liquidpele said:
We don’t. The first pulsar star we saw we thought was a signal from intelligent life. Human opinion on what is designed and what is not is irrelevant to science, which is what ID claims it is.
Click to expand...
We should probably stop funding SETI right now as we will have no idea how to detect a designed signal.

Now let’s go back to the question.

So my computer that I am typing on would be my opinion that it was designed. Does my opinion on this differ than yours?
 
buffalo said:
We should probably stop funding SETI right now as we will have no idea how to detect a designed signal.

Now let’s go back to the question.

So my computer that I am typing on would be my opinion that it was designed. Does my opinion on this differ than yours?
Click to expand...
Look, we get it, it’s like finding a pocket watch in the desert blah blah blah. This has been argued ad nauseum. What you neglect is that life is designed in a way… it’s grown and evolved according to simple rules such as natural selection, chemical bonds, the properties of lipids, etc.

You’re essentially saying that the curves in the mandelbrot set are designed specifically in every instance, but they’re really just a product of the mathematical rules of the set. And for the record, I actually do think SETI is a waste of time.
 
St Augustine wrote (paraphrasing) that if one’s interpretation of Scripture contradicts fact, then one ought to question one’s interpretation. The Vatican has endorsed evolution that occurred over 4.5 billion years on earth. A person should be awestruck by the precise fine-tuning of the fundamental forces in the universe, the unique properties of liquid water, and the ability of carbon atoms to form so many complex bonds.
The creation story is a unique spin on ancient creation stories because it explicitly states the goodness of creation in contrast to the pagans.
Just because some scientists are atheists and agnostics, does not mean all scientists are.
The mindset that evolution is an atheistic communist conspiracy the result of extreme conservative fundamentalism, and is not appropriate.
Ed_CA
 
The Vatican made no such endorsement. The Church has infallibly declared that the universe has a finite age. It has made no infallible statement about the age of the earth. St. Augustine did say that but to call evolution a fact is not appropriate. Pope Benedict has said that evolution has not been scientifically proven:

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1645453.ece

If something like evolution occurred, it did not happen as outlined in the current textbooks. The textbook shows a self-starting, self-generating engine that just happened to produce man.

Peace,
Ed
 
ctconnor said:
First day on the forum. Currently debating a coworker about God in the classroom. Reading a book, Case For Creation, that says science is debunking a lot of Darwin’s theory on evolution. Science is showing an intelligence behind our existence versus God playing no role according to Darwin. My argument with him is I think you need to present both sides in the science class. Seems like our society is working hard to take God out of everything. Do you think this is ideology driven keeping God out of the classroom? Thanks!Chuck
Click to expand...
I haven’t read the whole thread yet but I have to say that I agree with the poster who said that teaching the theory of evolution is NOT pushing an atheist agenda. I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school my whole life and was taught evolution there. I have no problem simply believing that God created evolution. Where is the conflict? Seriously? Why do Catholics feel the need to rail against Darwin and evolution? I understand why other Christian’s do, because they believe in Genesis literally but as Catholics we are not required to do so.

And again, as another poster said, a public school teacher cannot and should not discuss God at all. Even in my science classes at Catholic school, we did not simultaneously discuss God and creation. God is not a scientific theory and I bet people would be more up in arms about what a science teacher would say about God, considering all of the religious beliefs out there. We’d have to change the class to Biology and Comparative Religion.
 
carinapir said:
I haven’t read the whole thread yet but I have to say that I agree with the poster who said that teaching the theory of evolution is NOT pushing an atheist agenda. I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school my whole life and was taught evolution there. I have no problem simply believing that God created evolution. Where is the conflict? Seriously? Why do Catholics feel the need to rail against Darwin and evolution? I understand why other Christian’s do, because they believe in Genesis literally but as Catholics we are not required to do so.

And again, as another poster said, a public school teacher cannot and should not discuss God at all. Even in my science classes at Catholic school, we did not simultaneously discuss God and creation. God is not a scientific theory and I bet people would be more up in arms about what a science teacher would say about God, considering all of the religious beliefs out there. We’d have to change the class to Biology and Comparative Religion.
Click to expand...
“Where is the conflict?” Do you believe we had many parents (called polygenism) or a single set of parents (called monogenism) as the Church teaches? What is the origin of Eve’s body according to Church teaching?

Please see part 37 of Humani Generis:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Who committed Original Sin? Why did Jesus have to die? If you don’t know the answers to these questions, what will you say to an unbeliever who asks you? Jesus tells us in the New Testament that Moses wrote concerning Him. We are also told that through one man sin entered the world. One man.

Peace,
Ed
 
carinapir said:
I haven’t read the whole thread yet but I have to say that I agree with the poster who said that teaching the theory of evolution is NOT pushing an atheist agenda. I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school my whole life and was taught evolution there. I have no problem simply believing that God created evolution. Where is the conflict? Seriously? Why do Catholics feel the need to rail against Darwin and evolution? I understand why other Christian’s do, because they believe in Genesis literally but as Catholics we are not required to do so.

And again, as another poster said, a public school teacher cannot and should not discuss God at all. Even in my science classes at Catholic school, we did not simultaneously discuss God and creation. God is not a scientific theory and I bet people would be more up in arms about what a science teacher would say about God, considering all of the religious beliefs out there. We’d have to change the class to Biology and Comparative Religion.
Click to expand...
Catholics are required to read and understand Scripture as the Church has understood and taught since the beginning.
 
edwest2 said:
“Where is the conflict?” Do you believe we had many parents (called polygenism) or a single set of parents (called monogenism) as the Church teaches? What is the origin of Eve’s body according to Church teaching?

Please see part 37 of Humani Generis:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Who committed Original Sin? Why did Jesus have to die? If you don’t know the answers to these questions, what will you say to an unbeliever who asks you? Jesus tells us in the New Testament that Moses wrote concerning Him. We are also told that through one man sin entered the world. One man.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Yes, I am aware of the Church’s teaching on monogenism and I remembered it after my post, however until they find the “missing link” it is still possible to believe that there, some how, was only one Adam and one Eve. And if monogenism is true then they won’t find the missing link, now will they? But deep in my heart of hearts, no, I don’t have a problem with the idea that Adam and Eve were created when they became sentient or had souls breath in to them by God, so that technically we could have evolved from apes. Now that’s a cool God. 🙂

I’ll have to read the link you provided to see if that changes my mind, but I honestly don’t see why it would be so important to have Adam and Eve created just like in Genesis but the rest of Genesis can be taken more metaphorically.

But all of this diverges from the point. Do you really want an atheist, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, Protestant, etc. science teacher trying to delicately provide public school students with a “state approved” religious version of creation as described in the Bible or discuss the fact that God created the world while simultaneously trying not to promote their own religion? That’s not fair to the teacher or the students. If what the teacher said or discussed was too colored by any religion, parents of other religions would be upset.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top