Evolution In The Classroom

  • Thread starter Thread starter ctconnor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
carinapir said:
Firstly, science does study the work of God whether the scientists believe in God or not as everything is the work of God. Wouldn’t you agree? Science just doesn’t prove God’s existance and it cannot measure His envolvement.

Science is not the basis for logic. Logic, in this case, is in the connection between faith and science.

Science tells us how rain occurs and the various atmosphereic conditions that can create rain. If you believe in God as well, you might logically conclude that God created the rules or conditions for rain. Or you might go one step further and conclude that each time God wants it to rain, he communicates His will to nature in that way. How does it not make sense to make that connection?

I’m not really the best person to be arguing about this because I’m not trained in logic but I think that the basic idea makes sense.
Click to expand...
Then let’s just go by this and other evolution threads here. Pick up the biology textbook. God in there? Nope. Everything was done by a mechanism called evolution. It had the raw material and cranked out life.

Science tells us all sorts of things. How it rains, how lightning is produced, that there were pre-humans, that a minimum of 1,000 breeding pairs of semi-humans existed. Then people who are usually not scientists, come over here and make false statements based on a superficial or nonexistent understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches.

“Look, look. It says right here that 1,000 breeding pairs minimum were needed. You know what that means?”

No. What?

“Adam and Eve could not have been the parents of all human beings!”

Really? How do you know that?

“Science told me! Aren’t you paying attention!?”

Are you Catholic?

“Yeah.”

Do you know what the Church teaches about Adam and Eve?

“Yeah, but look at the Science! I mean it says right there…”

Can God perform miracles?

“Yeah, but you don’t get it. Science says…”

Science can’t analyze the work of God.
That’s all I’m saying. Science cannot determine the whole story of man’s true origin.

peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Pick up the biology textbook. God in there? Nope. Everything was done by a mechanism called evolution. It had the raw material and cranked out life.
Click to expand...
Pick up the physics textbook. God in there? Nope. Everything was done by mechanisms called gravitation, subatomic physics, quantum mechanics, evolution. These work on the raw material and crank out physical action and reaction. No God there.
 
Evolution - more certain than gravity? I don’t think so.

Human origins is the issue, not gravity, not quantum physics - human origins.

First, science contains no God. Check the ingredients needed for Life. Evolution: This product contains no God, or MSG.

Please, give me a break. Catholic teaching says that if any theory explicitly denies to God any truly causal role in the development of life, it is what? Incompatible with the Catholic faith. End of story.

So please, stop pushing science which is silent about God and the supernatural as having some sort of demonstrable explanatory power regarding human origins. It is flawed. It excludes God in its explanation.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Please stop the science fiction. There is no science behind sentience as you call it. It is a wish that is not supported by any science at all.

God was a direct, causal agent in Creation. That, at least, is supported by the Church, not some atheist nonsense about “sentience.”

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Analysis of observation if what led to the theory of evolution, which qualifies as science.
 
buffalo said:
The only way out of this is that God rolled dice. This is counter to clear Catholic teaching and understanding.
Click to expand...
Matter and energy behave probabilistically, so by your logic everything God does is a roll of the dice.
 
edwest2 said:
Evolution - more certain than gravity? I don’t think so.

Human origins is the issue, not gravity, not quatum physics - human origins.

First, science contains no God. Check the ingredients needed for Life. Evolution: This product contains no God, or MSG.

Please, give me a break. Catholic teaching says that if any theory explicitly denies to God any truly causal role in the development of life, it is what? Incompatible with the Catholic faith. End of story.

So please, stop pushing science which is silent about God and the supernatural as having some sort of demonstrable explanatory power regarding human origins. It is flawed. It excludes God in its explanation.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
It does not “explicitly deny” God a role, it simply does not mention Him because the the supernatural is outside the realm of natural science. If a biologist says life arose through XXX that’s fine. If a biologist says life arose though XXX and God couldn’t have had anything to do with it, that’s not. If a meteorologist says it rains because of XXX, that’s fine and compatible with the Catholic faith. If he said it rains because of XXX and God couldn’t have had anything to do with it, that’s not.
 
edwest2 said:
You have that backwards. Everything evolution does is a roll of the dice.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I said God could act through a process we perceive as random. It was retorted that God would be rolling the dice. I pointed out that we perceive all matter and energy, and therefore all process, as random so by that logic God couldn’t do anything without ‘rolling the dice.’
 
tjm190 said:
Like the existence of God. So it doesn’t talk about God.
Click to expand...
Then you are missing a common phenomenon going on here and in the outside world: mixing science with religion. Happens all the time. Signs on buses, and even on billboards.
It doesn’t talk about God? So what? Plenty of people create the “here’s science talking about God” phenomenon almost every day here.

If it was “just” about science, I would have nothing to complain about.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Then you are missing a common phenomenon going on here and in the outside world: mixing science with religion. Happens all the time. Signs on buses, and even on billboards.
It doesn’t talk about God? So what? Plenty of people create the “here’s science talking about God” phenomenon almost every day here.

If it was “just” about science, I would have nothing to complain about.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Science is a method by which we acquire knowledge. People will naturally use knowledge they have acquired in their lives. As such, people may believe said knowledge provides support for their dispositions, in this case either pro or anti religion- thus, they present their scientific knowledge in the manner they perceive it. However, the knowledge itself has nothing to do with God until someone decided it does.
 
tjm190 said:
Science is a method by which we acquire knowledge. People will naturally use knowledge they have acquired in their lives. As such, people may believe said knowledge provides support for their dispositions, in this case either pro or anti religion- thus, they present their scientific knowledge in the manner they perceive it. However, the knowledge itself has nothing to do with God until someone decided it does.
Click to expand...
So, it has nothing to do with God? Really? Then you’ve missed just about every thread here on evolution. Then you’ve missed the lawsuit in California that pointed out how a web site was using quotes from religious figures to say evolution is OK. It is very much about God and the New Atheist propaganda machine that is attempting to gain the trust of the public.

How many threads here about the current theories regarding gravity, or quantum mechanics? How many devoted to those subjects based purely on science? Can you think of a reason for that?

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
So, it has nothing to do with God? Really? Then you’ve missed just about every thread here on evolution. Then you’ve missed the lawsuit in California that pointed out how a web site was using quotes from religious figures to say evolution is OK. It is very much about God and the New Atheist propaganda machine that is attempting to gain the trust of the public.

How many threads here about the current theories regarding gravity, or quantum mechanics? How many devoted to those subjects based purely on science? Can you think of a reason for that?

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
One would use quotes from saints that showed evolution is okay to prove that there was no conflict between faith and religion.
As I’ve said about 1000 times, atheists use evolution against theists only because many theists reject evolution, and the validity of that rejection can be disproven. If we all believed that men had one less rib then women, then anatomy would be the controversial issue.
Strike your enemy where he is weakest
 
Stuart Newman and Evolution’s Testability

…
Given scientific problems such as these, how can evolutionists promote their naturalistic agenda? For starters Newman encourages his fellow evolutionists to be more forthcoming about problems with their theory. A century ago physicists had the courage to acknowledge that the old ideas were not adequate, but:

The present-day neo-Darwinists provide a poor contrast to this, insofar as they persist in the hand-waving consignment of all problematic aspects of the origination of complex subcellular entities to the putative universal mechanism of random variation and natural selection. … Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory.
While such truth in advertising is certainly laudable, note what is not on the table. For the evolutionist, sub hypotheses can be freely discarded but the core theory is not testable. After all, it is a fact, regardless of the science. Religion drives science and it matters.
 
buffalo said:
** the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory**

A theory that is daily acted upon as true by 100,000 biologists seems quite alive to me.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top