Evolution In The Classroom

[liquidpele]

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.

As has already been pointed out, it does not appear that Catholicism has a specific teaching on the topic. You’ve simply decided that your view on the matter is the only way that could be compatible. I think you are being unreasonable by making that assumption and rejecting scientific observations when you clearly embrace other fruits of such philosophy (you’re chatting online after all).

 

[buffalo]

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.

This article articulates the problems with Coyne’s thinking.

Darwin’s Divisions

* The Pope, the Cardinal, the Jesuit & the Evolving Debate About Origins*

 

[buffalo]

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.

No Catholic has an argument with change. Where the problem is materialist unguided chance change.

Is Theistic Evolution Truly Plausible?

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1).[1] He created the light, which He separated from the darkness; the waters, the sky, and the land; the plants and the trees; the sun, the moon, and the stars; the fish, the birds, and the animals (Gen 1:2-25). “And God saw that it was good” (Gen 1:25). Then, as the crowning jewel of His creation, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27). God gave man dominion over all the other creatures that He created (Gen 1:28). “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good” (Gen 1:31). In this article, I will carefully examine the origins of man and will discuss the plausibility of theistic evolution—specifically, the notion that man evolved from a lower animal species. I will show that in light of Sacred Scripture, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and sound reason, the theory of evolution, though perhaps remotely possible in a very restricted sense, is nevertheless not truly plausible.

more…

 

[buffalo]

As has already been pointed out, it does not appear that Catholicism has a specific teaching on the topic. You’ve simply decided that your view on the matter is the only way that could be compatible. I think you are being unreasonable by making that assumption and rejecting scientific observations when you clearly embrace other fruits of such philosophy (you’re chatting online after all).

Bogus alert! Even evolution is the cause of the computer. How ridiculous this is.

Technology could not have come about without evolution? or just science?

No doubt science has benefited mankind. These are clear cases where experiment, failure, theorizing have provided tangible successes. How on earth does this have anything to do with the philosophy of evolution?

I will point out that science capitulated to the thinking of the day on the frequency of AC current. Motors would have been smaller and much more efficient if we thought this through. We still have motors though don’t we, albeit less efficient than they could be.

 

[liquidpele]

Bogus alert! Even evolution is the cause of the computer. How ridiculous this is.

Technology could not have come about without evolution? or just science?

No doubt science has benefited mankind. These are clear cases where experiment, failure, theorizing have provided tangible successes. How on earth does this have anything to do with the philosophy of evolution?

I will point out that science capitulated to the thinking of the day on the frequency of AC current. Motors would have been smaller and much more efficient if we thought this through. We still have motors though don’t we, albeit less efficient than they could be.

Sigh. I said of the same philosophy. As in science itself.

And yes, the computer could not have come about without science. Period.

Are you advocating DC current? It’s fine great for local use, which is why most adapters are transformers converting to DC. However, the power losses over a distance are fairly ridiculous unless you up the voltage to points that were beyond the means of anyone until just recently.

 

[tjm190]

The mechanics of evolution don’t allow for Gods intervention any less than the mechanics of plate techtonics or meteorology- despite this, I believe God could make it rain if he wished AND Im not against teaching these mechanics.

 

[buffalo]

Sigh. I said of the same philosophy. As in science itself.

And yes, the computer could not have come about without science. Period.

Are you advocating DC current? It’s fine great for local use, which is why most adapters are transformers converting to DC. However, the power losses over a distance are fairly ridiculous unless you up the voltage to points that were beyond the means of anyone until just recently.

No - not DC current - AC current.

 

[liquidpele]

No - not DC current - AC current.

Ah, I see what you’re saying. The issue is that without science you wouldn’t have motors AT ALL.

Even if you wanted to deny that motors were the result of science, modern medicine, computers, radio, just about every alternative energy, etc are all highly dependent on the scientific method and analytical data. The point being, you’re enjoying the fruits of science while saying that science is attacking your beliefs. I’m curious how you rationalize this.

 

[edwest2]

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.

Father Coyne is, unfortunately, the go-to guy for those who propose an evolution where even God was not certain that man would be the result. God does not work that way. Before I continue, let me make it clear that I do not consider the Bible a science book but it does describe what God did and what God can do. The Bible tells us that God’s Word does not return to him void (empty) but finishes the work it was sent to do.

In the document Communion and Stewardship, the Church makes it very clear that A) whatever you call the process, it is guided by God who operates infallibly, and B) it regards all theories of evolution that explicity deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life as incompatible with the Catholic faith, and C) any process like evolution simply cannot exist without the action of divine providence.

So molecules to man evolution is impossible without the direct causal action of God. It is definitely appropriate to say that on a Catholic forum.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

Oh no, the scientific community is a political block just like any other entity. A “comedien” on TV recently commented on the ‘fact’ that Conservatives don’t believe in evolution, and no one asked me to carry a Conservative Card, but there I am, made an automatic member.

I went to college, and I went to a specialized school to pick up electronics. Never once was the word evolution used at any time. I worked in health care for almost ten years and watched as a doctor produced a breakthrough imaging technology in xeroradiography.

I study the history of technology and learned that wherever humans are involved, the temptation to manipulate and misinterpret data exists.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog/MCGBEN.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

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.

That’s some of the best advice I’ve seen. There are more than three people in the world who question evolutionary theory. You might try reading some of the several books published on ID in recent years also. It certainly doesn’t look like interest is dying.

Even some atheists are starting to get interested. I guess that means that ID has now become fashionable enough for StAnastasia now, right? Or is it possible that there are actually atheists who he would dare to disagree with? Maybe they’re not real atheists, so they’re obviously wrong.

An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design

 

[buffalo]

Ah, I see what you’re saying. The issue is that without science you wouldn’t have motors AT ALL.

Even if you wanted to deny that motors were the result of science, modern medicine, computers, radio, just about every alternative energy, etc are all highly dependent on the scientific method and analytical data. The point being, you’re enjoying the fruits of science while saying that science is attacking your beliefs. I’m curious how you rationalize this.

You are not getting it. I did not deny the fruits of experimentation and development. Trebuchey’s were developed without any help from evolutionism. You are mixing things here. I enjoy some of the positive fruits of the pursuit of knowledge (science) as anyone else does. Some of it is bad too. And some of it not quite as developed as it could be due to bias.

Let’s get this clear (for the hundredth time) Faith and reason cannot be opposed for they flow from the same God. Truth cannot contradict truth.

If you a priori always pick the black balls from the box of colored balls you will have built an foundational error upon which all of future reasoning is subject to. that the box just contains black balls. A paradigm shift is necessary to again start picking all the balls and then applying proper reasoning. Science (the pursuit of knowledge) is not the issue. In and of itself it is good. However, one must be sure that we properly and openly reason the observations properly.

It is as simple as this. Wrong reasoning deserves to be challenged. (on all sides) Only then can we get at the real truth.

 

[reggieM]

Villanova University sponsors – Latest Scientific Discoveries Challenge Darwinian Evolution’s Fitness to Survive

This is a great event. It’s good to see these prominent Catholics providing this teaching to the public. John Haas is a superb Catholic educator. The other names should be familiar also.

 

[reggieM]

The point being, you’re enjoying the fruits of science while saying that science is attacking your beliefs. I’m curious how you rationalize this.

Has science become so dictatorial that we have to embrace every claim (even the contradictory ones) and we’re not permitted to question or reject notions which are later proven to be spurious anyway?

So, it’s all or nothing. If we’ve ever boiled water we must accept whatever any scientist claims (except for those who question evolutionary theory) - right?

 

[carinapir]

Father Coyne is, unfortunately, the go-to guy for those who propose an evolution where even God was not certain that man would be the result.

I don’t think that that was what Coyne was suggesting but I read the article not his paper/speech. The article that Buffalo posted suggested that Coyne meant “evolution where God was not certain that man would result” but again, I don’t think that was Coyne’s conclusion. If it was, I disagree with that point and it would seem obvious that any Catholic would disagree. Which is why I think that Coyne would disagree that that was his point.

In the document Communion and Stewardship, the Church makes it very clear that A) whatever you call the process, it is guided by God who operates infallibly, and B) it regards all theories of evolution that explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life as incompatible with the Catholic faith, and C) any process like evolution simply cannot exist without the action of divine providence.

Again, I think that atheists believe that evolution points to no God because they are already atheist. A religious person looks at the scientific studies and says that God is behind it all. No Christian with disagree with the above, so what are we arguing about?

So molecules to man evolution is impossible without the direct causal action of God. It is definitely appropriate to say that on a Catholic forum.

I agree and no Christian would disagree with that basic statement. Of course, I suppose that depends on what you mean by direct causal action.

My comment about discussing the process of evolution without mentioning God was meant to refer to in the classroom, not on this forum.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Your ignorance of Biology renders me speechless.

rossum

My thoughts exactly, i can’t believe the creationist on this thread. They make up the own objections to something they have no understanding of… No one ever heard of a book?

 

[tjm190]

Yes, exactly. It’s a violation of church and state and it’s state-sponsored indoctrination in atheistic thought.

Are we surprised that all of the atheists on CAF are ardent supporters of evolutionary theory and cannot accept the slightest criticism to it?

We also teach the ‘atheist point of view’ with respect to meteorology, since we don’t state that it rains cause God wants it to- we simply teach the mechanics.

 

[liquidpele]

You are not getting it. I did not deny the fruits of experimentation and development. Trebuchey’s were developed without any help from evolutionism. You are mixing things here. I enjoy some of the positive fruits of the pursuit of knowledge (science) as anyone else does. Some of it is bad too. And some of it not quite as developed as it could be due to bias.

Let’s get this clear (for the hundredth time) Faith and reason cannot be opposed for they flow from the same God. Truth cannot contradict truth.

If you a priori always pick the black balls from the box of colored balls you will have built an foundational error upon which all of future reasoning is subject to. that the box just contains black balls. A paradigm shift is necessary to again start picking all the balls and then applying proper reasoning. Science (the pursuit of knowledge) is not the issue. In and of itself it is good. However, one must be sure that we properly and openly reason the observations properly.

It is as simple as this. Wrong reasoning deserves to be challenged. (on all sides) Only then can we get at the real truth.

Okay, let me put it simpler.

Evolution is based on evidence, according to the scientific method. This is also how we developed the theories for atoms, current/voltage, doping silicon to build semiconductors, etc. Both evolution and computers are based off of evidence, science, and applying that knowledge. And yes, we can apply knowledge of evolution - for instance the idea that two of our chromosomes fused was confirmed after the hypothesis/prediction.

Now, you were claiming that science was attacking faith and God in this situation. My point, is that you can’t say “science” is or that “evolution” (being science) is. Perhaps some people are, but strict empirical evidence about reality can’t really be biased.

My point is that you seem to be fine with the fruits of science as long as they don’t conflict with the way you think reality *should *be. Of course, I’m guessing that you’ll argue that evolution is just not science or something, but my point is that you’re unfairly separating out one area of science as invalid while accepting others when they are both based on the same premise of evidence and the scientific method.

 

[edwest2]

Again, I think that atheists believe that evolution points to no God because they are already atheist. A religious person looks at the scientific studies and says that God is behind it all. No Christian with disagree with the above, so what are we arguing about?

I agree and no Christian would disagree with that basic statement. Of course, I suppose that depends on what you mean by direct causal action.

My comment about discussing the process of evolution without mentioning God was meant to refer to in the classroom, not on this forum.

What are we arguing about? I guess I’ll have to blunt. No God - no evolution. The Church has made it clear that the engine called evolution CANNOT work all by itself. And it’s not sufficient to hold up the Biology text and proclaim that God did it. Today, Biology textbooks say that it happens all by itself. And some go further and explicitly deny any plan or goal, showing a clear bias toward atheism.

Peace,
Ed

 

[carinapir]

What are we arguing about? I guess I’ll have to blunt. No God - no evolution. The Church has made it clear that the engine called evolution CANNOT work all by itself. And it’s not sufficient to hold up the Biology text and proclaim that God did it. Today, Biology textbooks say that it happens all by itself. And some go further and explicitly deny any plan or goal, showing a clear bias toward atheism.

That’s not being blunt that’s stating your point. No God - No evolution is obvious. If we’ve been arguing about Biology textbooks than why haven’t we seen more quotes directly from text books?

Catholic schools teach out of some of the same text books. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school and was taught about evolution. I’m not atheist because of it. Evolution shakes your faith not mine.