Evolution In The Classroom

[carinapir]

cassini,

I’ve heard many stories like yours. Personally, I don’t believe that non evolutionists are stupid or anything like that. It’s a shame when people do make that generalization. I’m going to try to stick to the topic, but first let me go off on a tangent. I believe it’s wrong for anyone to claim to subscribe to any one school of thought in all aspects, unless they’ve read through it pretty thoroughly and honestly comprehend it. On that note, I wouldn’t say I’m a pure evolutionist at all. I’ve read a good bit of literature on it (nothing incredibly advanced though) and most of it makes sense to me. I can’t speak for what I haven’t read, and there are some parts which I do have problems with.

However, this is where I see a major difference between science and religion. Concerning the parts I don’t fully understand or agree with, I’m open to hear any explanation or clarification. With science, there’s no problem with disagreement on some aspects because it isn’t “right” or “wrong” (in most cases anyway; some things are pretty indisputable). With religion, the dogma must be accepted one hundred percent or not at all.

Getting back to evolution though, I’m not a pure evolutionist. There are so many aspects of the development of life that are still complete mysteries. Anyone who says they have all the answers, even if that person is a scientist, is either mistaken or lying. Thinking for oneself is, in my opinion, the most important skill a person can have. Science is about questioning things, which, unfortunately, isn’t an idea which is well represented or understood. There are many scientists and evolutionists who will not listen to arguments against their view, and this is a shame. I guess my main point is that questioning things you don’t understand is really the best thing you can do when looking for truth.

Great post! As you say, there is no requirement for someone to accept all of the concepts of a scientific idea and science is constantly correcting itself. For those that use the argument that science is flawed because the scientists keep changing their mind, you are missing the point of science.

I would also like to remind the Catholics arguing against evolution that if someone says that they believe in evolution, it does not necessarily mean that they are a “pure-evolutionist,” as Pzona pointed out, just as saying that you don’t believe in evolution does no necessarily mean that you are a creationist.

Ed has said (sorry but you were a good example ) that he does not support “theistic evolution” but believes something along the lines of intelligent design. I say: What’s the different? Yes, I know that there IS a difference in the specific definition of the words, but I think that a regular person might use these two terms somewhat interchangeably. We have not defined what we mean by theistic evolution versus other ideas about how God created the universe, so we might just be arguing in circles.

On a side note, here is an interesting article:

"Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says"

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

 

[tjm190]

“explicit Papal approval”? To be used only when it supports the theory of evolution. This is repeated over and over and over again as if the Church has said nothing else about evolution. The Church, we are led to believe, only says positive things about evolution. That’s wrong. Referring to the secularly famous quote from Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict added, “But it is also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

I’m getting tired of this “by any means necessary” approach to selling what is obviously an ideology that borrows a few scientific ideas. What I mean is: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief. on billboards. Or: Man Created God. on the sides of buses.

To paraphrase a certain TV judge: Don’t pour water on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Peace,
Ed

I’m not interested in the Romes stance on evolution as valid science, just the approval because the approval is all the Pope is qualified to give. For example, if JPII said that enjoying football was not contradictary to the faith, that would be of interest. If Benedictine added “and the Giants are sure to make the playoffs this year” that would not.

 

[StAnastasia]

So what? You think God would no longer hand out souls and love us if you had 6 eyes and 8 legs? Besides, that’s speculation. All we know is that it looks undirected and that there was no intent, but that’s because science is empirical so it should not make any claims on purpose or intent. You can actually debate that. The part you’re insane to debate is that evolution happens at all.

Reggie and Ed and Buffalo will be posting against their caricature of evolution on this lonely forum, probably until they die. Meanwhile,100,000 biologists and allied scientists work serenely on, quietly go on strengthening the theory, day after day, year after year. Among them are their colleagues who are Catholics, including priests who celebrate the Eucharist in the morning before going to their labs or classrooms.

The noise Reggie and Ed and Buffalo make here, or that Michale Behe and the Kolbe Center will make at Villanova on October 24th is loud, but utterly inconsequential. I would be willing to bet that ten years from now the same debates will be playing out on Catholic Answers, we will still be waiting for the Discovery Institute’s promised imminent proof of the divine designer, Robert Sungenis will still be whining that Copernicus was wrong, the Kolbe Center will be mumbling on about a 10,000 year old earth, and – still astonished and perplexed – Michael Behe will be tinkering with his molecular black box from his wheelchair.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

On a side note, here is an interesting article:"Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says"catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

Cardinal Schonborn “is in error,” the Vatican observatory director says, on “at least five fundamental issues.”

“One, the scientific theory of evolution, as all scientific theories, is completely neutral with respect to religious thinking; two, the message of John Paul II, which I have just referred to and which is dismissed by the cardinal as ‘rather vague and unimportant,’ is a fundamental church teaching which significantly advances the evolution debate; three, neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection;’ four, the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer; five, Intelligent Design is not science despite the cardinal’s statement that ‘neo-Darwinism and the multi-verse hypothesis in cosmology [were] invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science,’” Father Coyne says.

 

[pzona]

Great post! As you say, there is no requirement for someone to accept all of the concepts of a scientific idea and science is constantly correcting itself. For those that use the argument that science is flawed because the scientists keep changing their mind, you are missing the point of science.

First of all thanks, I’m glad you enjoyed it

Let me add to this a question for creationists (or even non evolutionists in general). If science did not ever correct itself, would this make more or less sense to you? I’m just wondering, because it seems as if some of you simply refuse to accept science whether it corrects itself or not. In addition, do you trust other ideas in science (gravity, hemoglobin synthesis, all of medicinal practice, etc.)? If so, why not evolution? Is it more likely that science is trying to lie to you, or that a group of people concerned with one area of science are trying to convince you of something they sincerely believe is true? Remember, just because someone says something that isn’t true (although I believe most of evolution IS true) doesn’t mean they are lying to you or trying to trick you

 

[edwest2]

Lonely, serenely, quietly, strengthening. In 10 years, something some people call science will still be commenting on something it cannot, we are told, comment on: “Your holy book is wrong, here, here and here.”

Oh brother.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

No, it’s just like the fact that evolution claims to teach the origin and nature of human beings – in contradiction to the infallible teaching of Catholicism.

The “infallible” teaching of Catholicism is as irrelevant in biology today or neuroscience tomorrow as it was in cosmology in Galileo’s time. It carries neither more nor less weight with the scientific community than do the sonorous pronouncements of the Dalai Lama or Chief Black Elk or the Ayatollah Khomeini.

 

[edwest2]

First of all thanks, I’m glad you enjoyed it

Let me add to this a question for creationists (or even non evolutionists in general). If science did not ever correct itself, would this make more or less sense to you? I’m just wondering, because it seems as if some of you simply refuse to accept science whether it corrects itself or not. In addition, do you trust other ideas in science (gravity, hemoglobin synthesis, all of medicinal practice, etc.)? If so, why not evolution? Is it more likely that science is trying to lie to you, or that a group of people concerned with one area of science are trying to convince you of something they sincerely believe is true? Remember, just because someone says something that isn’t true (although I believe most of evolution IS true) doesn’t mean they are lying to you or trying to trick you

Here is the clear purpose of science (which equals evolution) today.

Billboard: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.

Bus sign: Man created God.

Evolutionary psychology proposes that man’s neural-cognitive development, controlled by his genes, allowed his brain size to increase, causing him to develop the idea of god/gods, purely as a survival mechanism. Now that we know this, and because we’re so much smarter than primitive man, we can safely discard the idea of god/gods.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

Here is the clear purpose of science (which equals evolution) today.

Billboard: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.

Bus sign: Man created God.

Evolutionary psychology proposes that man’s neural-cognitive development, controlled by his genes, allowed his brain size to increase, causing him to develop the idea of god/gods, purely as a survival mechanism. Now that we know this, and because we’re so much smarter than primitive man, we can safely discard the idea of god/gods.

Peace,
Ed

Once again, you’re trying to equate atheism to science to further your own agenda.
They are completely separate. As I’ve mentioned before, atheists support the Red Cross too, but I don’t see you calling that bad. Wendy’s doesn’t advertise God in their restaurant, surely they are an atheist company and you should all boycott their delicious spicy chicken sandwiches?

 

[tjm190]

Here is the clear purpose of science (which equals evolution) today.

Billboard: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.

Bus sign: Man created God.

Evolutionary psychology proposes that man’s neural-cognitive development, controlled by his genes, allowed his brain size to increase, causing him to develop the idea of god/gods, purely as a survival mechanism. Now that we know this, and because we’re so much smarter than primitive man, we can safely discard the idea of god/gods.

Peace,
Ed

Here is the clear purpose of religion- praise Allah. Drown the infidels in a river of blood.

People will use whatever they have to further their agenda- science included.

 

[gearhead]

How did male and female evolve at the same time at the same place with all the rights parts necessary to reproduce? Chance?

You do realize that there are a number of species living today that can reproduce both sexually and asexually, right?

 

[carinapir]

Cardinal Schonborn “is in error,” the Vatican observatory director says, on “at least five fundamental issues.”

“One, the scientific theory of evolution, as all scientific theories, is completely neutral with respect to religious thinking; two, the message of John Paul II, which I have just referred to and which is dismissed by the cardinal as ‘rather vague and unimportant,’ is a fundamental church teaching which significantly advances the evolution debate; three, neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection;’ four, the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer; five, Intelligent Design is not science despite the cardinal’s statement that ‘neo-Darwinism and the multi-verse hypothesis in cosmology [were] invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science,’” Father Coyne says.

Yup! My favorite part is “the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer.” Now that’s going to get some people’s panties in a twist. And it will be because they don’t understand what he means by that.

Another good bit is: He says that God is not needed to explain the “scientific picture of life’s origins in terms of religious belief.”

“To need God would be a very denial of God. God is not a response to a need,” the Jesuit says, adding that some religious believers act as if they “fondly hope for the durability of certain gaps in our scientific knowledge of evolution, so that they can fill them with God.”

The truth of evolution is definitly still under debate within the Catholic Church.

 

[edwest2]

Once again, you’re trying to equate atheism to science to further your own agenda.
They are completely separate. As I’ve mentioned before, atheists support the Red Cross too, but I don’t see you calling that bad. Wendy’s doesn’t advertise God in their restaurant, surely they are an atheist company and you should all boycott their delicious spicy chicken sandwiches?

Can you tell me what my agenda is? I give clear, concrete examples that purely mechanistic evolution, as currently taught, allows zero room for interference by any supernatural or divine source. It does not suddenly become OK because some religious person had a few good words to say about it. The good words were always conditional.

They are not completely separate.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

Can you tell me what my agenda is? I give clear, concrete examples that purely mechanistic evolution, as currently taught, allows zero room for interference by any supernatural or divine source. It does not suddenly become OK because some religious person had a few good words to say about it. The good words were always conditional.

They are not completely separate.

Peace,
Ed

Do you think God would control every single atom and it’s interaction with every other atom? If not, then why do you assume he controls every or any aspect of evolution? Why can’t it be material and there still be a God? I think your agenda is that you’re only willing to accept a God that specially made you with 2 eyes, 2 ears, and a belly button and you want to convince everyone that you’re right. As another person pointed out, you seem to belittle God by saying he had to have done things they way *you *think. Others on the other hand look at the evidence and realize that certain interpretations simply seem to be wrong just as the firmament, flat earth, and geocentric universe were and they try to find the truth using both what we’ve learned about reality (God’s creation mind you) and what the inspired word of God says. I think the issue is that most people take both into account to try and find truth, while you take only one and thus have gone down a side road because you ignored certain road signs that weren’t specifically the kind you wanted.

 

[carinapir]

Can you tell me what my agenda is? I give clear, concrete examples that purely mechanistic evolution, as currently taught, allows zero room for interference by any supernatural or divine source. It does not suddenly become OK because some religious person had a few good words to say about it. The good words were always conditional.

They are not completely separate.

Peace,
Ed

Do you think that Father Coyne is just plain wrong in the article that I posted, or do you think that he is presenting a complex idea about the relationship between God and the theory of evolution that possibly shows how evolution is not, in and of itself, athiestic?

He says “the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer.”

And

“God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,” he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.”

This merely means that God does not necessarily have a active hand in each tiny step of evolution. The process of evolution does not require a strict designer and therefore it is appropriate to discuss the process without reference to God, even though we might all know that God is ultimatly behind everything.

 

[buffalo]

Reggie and Ed and Buffalo will be posting against their caricature of evolution on this lonely forum, probably until they die. Meanwhile,100,000 biologists and allied scientists work serenely on, quietly go on strengthening the theory, day after day, year after year. Among them are their colleagues who are Catholics, including priests who celebrate the Eucharist in the morning before going to their labs or classrooms.

The noise Reggie and Ed and Buffalo make here, or that Michale Behe and the Kolbe Center will make at Villanova on October 24th is loud, but utterly inconsequential. I would be willing to bet that ten years from now the same debates will be playing out on Catholic Answers, we will still be waiting for the Discovery Institute’s promised imminent proof of the divine designer, Robert Sungenis will still be whining that Copernicus was wrong, the Kolbe Center will be mumbling on about a 10,000 year old earth, and – still astonished and perplexed – Michael Behe will be tinkering with his molecular black box from his wheelchair.

StAnastasia

You know StA your argument from popularity is getting to me. I may just accept evolution because a lot of people claim it true.

It kinda reminds of that ol’ saying - eat sH*t millions of flies can’t be wrong.

Just think - you know how many years it took for J Harlen Bretz’s theory of the megaflood to be accepted? His first claim 1923 - acceptance 60 - 70 years later. All the working scientists were uniformatarians and ostracized him for this theory.(just like you do StA)

Today virtually all scientists accept the megaflood and many more that swept through the region.

I suppose long ages are needed here to.

One note though - you had better get out more - this is not the only forum where this is being discussed, but you wouldn’t know that now would you. I am sure your esteemed colleagues keep you under lock and key.

 

[buffalo]

First of all thanks, I’m glad you enjoyed it

Let me add to this a question for creationists (or even non evolutionists in general). If science did not ever correct itself, would this make more or less sense to you? I’m just wondering, because it seems as if some of you simply refuse to accept science whether it corrects itself or not. In addition, do you trust other ideas in science (gravity, hemoglobin synthesis, all of medicinal practice, etc.)? If so, why not evolution? Is it more likely that science is trying to lie to you, or that a group of people concerned with one area of science are trying to convince you of something they sincerely believe is true? Remember, just because someone says something that isn’t true (although I believe most of evolution IS true) doesn’t mean they are lying to you or trying to trick you

Correct, they could be invincibly ignorant.

 

[buffalo]

Do you think God would control every single atom and it’s interaction with every other atom? If not, then why do you assume he controls every or any aspect of evolution? Why can’t it be material and there still be a God? I think your agenda is that you’re only willing to accept a God that specially made you with 2 eyes, 2 ears, and a belly button and you want to convince everyone that you’re right. As another person pointed out, you seem to belittle God by saying he had to have done things they way *you *think. Others on the other hand look at the evidence and realize that certain interpretations simply seem to be wrong just as the firmament, flat earth, and geocentric universe were and they try to find the truth using both what we’ve learned about reality (God’s creation mind you) and what the inspired word of God says. I think the issue is that most people take both into account to try and find truth, while you take only one and thus have gone down a side road because you ignored certain road signs that weren’t specifically the kind you wanted.

If it was only my opinion I could agree with you. But as a Catholic I have to listen to what Revelation tells us. Faith and reason cannot be opposed. Human interpretations can be wrong. Science is the servant of truth not truth itself.

I look for harmony between the truth of Revelation and our human interpretations of observations limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. I argue against scientism.

 

[pzona]

Here is the clear purpose of science (which equals evolution) today.

Billboard: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief.

Bus sign: Man created God.

Evolutionary psychology proposes that man’s neural-cognitive development, controlled by his genes, allowed his brain size to increase, causing him to develop the idea of god/gods, purely as a survival mechanism. Now that we know this, and because we’re so much smarter than primitive man, we can safely discard the idea of god/gods.

Peace,
Ed

Who do you think created those posters? Impartial chemists who could care less about evolution as far as their work is concerned, but for some reason get off on tricking people? Physicists who are busy working on quantum field problems, but made time to create propaganda because science is all about lies? Clearly these were created by evolutionists (probably not even scientists, based on their wording, but that’s just a guess) who do have an agenda to push, since people obviously still dispute the factuality of evolution. I’m not even going to attempt to explain why I believe evolution is true, since I realize that nothing short of the words “evolution happened” appearing in the Bible are going to convince you. Science does not equal evolution. Science is a thought process which was clearly in mind when the theory of evolution was created. I really don’t know how else to explain it; it’s frustrating when people refuse to understand that science isn’t an institution in itself. It’s a thought process, followed by a community which is often labeled the “scientific community.”

Also, just out of curiosity, have you ever worked in a scientific setting? Taken some basic university courses on chemistry, physics, etc.? Some of your claims seem to imply that your knowledge of science is based wholly on reading religious texts that do nothing but decry the evils of science. But I could be wrong, this is why I’m asking.

 

[carinapir]

If it was only my opinion I could agree with you. But as a Catholic I have to listen to what Revelation tells us. Faith and reason cannot be opposed. Human interpretations can be wrong. Science is the servant of truth not truth itself.

I look for harmony between the truth of Revelation and our human interpretations of observations limited by our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. I argue against scientism.

Hello Buffalo-

Do you have any thoughts on what Father Coyne said in the article I posted? It seems that at least one highly educated priest-scientist sees some valid points in the theory of evolution. He does not seem to feel conflicted by science versus Revelation. To be clear, I don’t mean to imply, as many posters have pointed out, that the theory of evolution is 100% proven in the details and I don’t think that Father Coyne is saying that either. But the evidence does seem to point to the fact that our world does change and evolve (little “e”) in some way. Why rail against evolution? Or perhaps, as I kind of suggested in my prior post, we are arguing in circles. If I say that I believe in the theory of evolution, it does not mean that I ascribe to each an every current thought on the matter.

Yes, science IS the servant of truth, which is why scientists are constantly researching and revising their theories.