Evolution In The Classroom

[hecd2]

I was criticising your contempt for intelligient design and young Earth creationism, rather than your main statement…

It is impossible to be too contemptuous of Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism.

And science has been demonstratively inefficient many, many times, often with catastrophic, or potentially catastrophic consequences.

What, like spending its time shouting loudly in the streets, and weeping and wailing in the corridors of power rather than getting on with good stuff in the laboratory? Do you mean *demonstrably incorrect *rather than demonstratively inefficient? But the same question stands in either case - such as?

Where mainstream science fails to admit it may well be wrong, I can’t help but bring myself to defend all alternatives.

So let’s see - the stronger the evidence for a hypothesis and the more confidence with which it can be held, the more you are drawn to pseudo-science and wacky cranks. Strange epistemology.

I will defend anyones right to disbelieve any theory which falsely presents itself as conclusive fact.

I will defend anyone’s right to disbelieve *any *scientific proposition whatsoever, but I defend my own right to say that in some cases that disbelief is unwarranted, ignorant and meretricious.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

It is impossible to be too contemptuous of Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism.
What, like spending its time shouting loudly in the streets, and weeping and wailing in the corridors of power rather than getting on with good stuff in the laboratory? Do you mean *demonstrably incorrect *rather than demonstratively inefficient? But the same question stands in either case - such as?
So let’s see - the stronger the evidence for a hypothesis and the more confidence with which it can be held, the more you are drawn to pseudo-science and wacky cranks. Strange epistemology.

I will defend anyone’s right to disbelieve *any *scientific proposition whatsoever, but I defend my own right to say that in some cases that disbelief is unwarranted, ignorant and meretricious.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I am finding scientific pronouncements less and less trustworthy because the obvious goal is not accepting the data but accepting the ideology.

The sacred classroom must be guarded eternally, the opponents to atheist reason must be denounced eternally, and no divine foot shall ever enter the public school which has been purged of God and shall remain so forever.

Ignorant no longer means a lack of knowledge. It means I cannot ever agree with you. Instead of the State operating an official propaganda program against religion, scientists have taken over that function.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

By his human nature.

Christ’s Divine supernatural nature trumps human nature which He used in order to exist in time and space. Thus, there is no limit to His knowledge. After a 30-year or so run, the idea that humanity tops Divinity is now seen as ridiculous. Guess I was mistaken that this attack on Christ’s Divinity was just a Midwest thing.

 

[grannymh]

. I am not promoting a new Church at all. Of course God is eternal, but the Church is not God. The Church is a human institution embedded in a perennially changing society, and her dogmas need to be reinterpreted by each generation. We no longer inhabit the first century with its Aristotelian-Ptolemaic, pre-Newtonian, pre-relativistic, pre-quantum mechanical, pre-evolutionary world view. If the Church is strong enough she can withstand that dramatic changes in worldview that have come about since 1600. If you are afraid she is not strong enough to weather these changes, perhaps she is not a church worth hanging onto.
StAnastasia

It is obvious that the catechesis in your part of the country failed to include the difference between the Mystical Body of Christ and the visible society of the Catholic Church. Even the concept of world view is not accurate regarding Catholicism in the first century and in this century. I am so sorry.

Someone who says that “The Church is a human institution embedded in a perennially changing society, and her dogmas need to be reinterpreted by each generation.” is de facto promoting a new church according to the “feminist agenda”.

My apology to my sisters for using feminist in this way; but this is the old Midwest term for what StAnastasia is referring to. In other words, there are a number of vocal people who prefer to stay “catholic” because they want to change Catholicism into a new church from within.

 

[grannymh]

With great difficulty. What was the Aramaic for “Deoxyribonucleic acid”? The available languages at the time did not even have the correct vocabulary to allow Him to explain the concepts, except in the vaguest of terms. How to explain complex chemistry to someone to whom water was one of the four elements and not a compound.?

rossum

I understand where you are coming from. However, the Catholic perspective does not focus on Jesus reciting the periodic table in its modern form. The Catholic perspective is that Jesus is God and all knowledge is innate to His Divinity.

Certainly, explaining complex chemistry to someone to whom water was one of the four elements in order to demonstrate One’s Divinity is not common sense. If I may shift to Franklin Covey and his books, etc., it is important to understand the other person’s position, etc. etc. in order to carry on a conversation. Thus, Jesus spoke in language understandable to the position(s) of His listeners.

Please pardon my sense of humor. But since I took physics instead of chemistry more than a half century ago, I am deeply grateful that when reading Scripture, I do not have to deal with “Deoxyribonucleic acid”.

 

[edwest2]

Christ’s Divine supernatural nature trumps human nature which He used in order to exist in time and space. Thus, there is no limit to His knowledge. After a 30-year or so run, the idea that humanity tops Divinity is now seen as ridiculous. Guess I was mistaken that this attack on Christ’s Divinity was just a Midwest thing.

It is global. Pope Benedict has pointed out the Dictatorship of Relativism which claims there are no absolute truths. The opposite of faith is not disbelief but indifference, another problem Pope Benedict has pointed out. And what did God tell His people in the Bible? Revelation 3:16 “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” In Western Europe, there is casual indifference toward faith. Richard Dawkins even puts up a Christmas tree as a cultural symbol devoid of meaning. And there are a few “cultural Catholics” who attend religious ceremonies like going to a theater to see a play. It is devoid of meaning.

Peace,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

It is obvious that the catechesis in your part of the country failed to include the difference between the Mystical Body of Christ and the visible society of the Catholic Church. Even the concept of world view is not accurate regarding Catholicism in the first century and in this century. I am so sorry.

Not true at all, Grannymh. Think more deeply.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t believe Jesus of Nazareth had the knowledge to address questions we now discuss about the age of the earth, the Pauli exclusion principle, the velocity of light, the genetic laws of inheritance, the structure of DNA, ecological succession to the climax forests of boreal Canada, or the temperature gradients tolerable by tube worm colonies around deep sea Atlantic thermal vents.

Jesus had far more life-changing news to convey to humanity!

StAnastasia

While it is nice to give kudos to Jesus for His life-changing news, not giving Jesus of Nazareth credit for knowledge of creation smacks of modern Arianism. On the other hand I could be wrong.

 

[grannymh]

Not true at all, Grannymh. Think more deeply.

All the new and modern wishful interpretations of Catholicism cannot change the truth. Even the distortions (of Catholic dogma) found in classrooms and in congregations will never bring down the Mystical Body of Christ. The remnants remain to grow strong again.

 

[StAnastasia]

While it is nice to give kudos to Jesus for His life-changing news, not giving Jesus of Nazareth credit for knowledge of creation smacks of modern Arianism. On the other hand I could be wrong.

The neuroscientific implications are rather large, to think that a baby’s brain could contain complete knowledge of every human language that has ever existed (at least 100,000), details of every historical event that had happened and that would happen in the next 2,000 years, modern scientific knowledge in every field from cosmology and physics to biology, geology, and genetics, etc. Is this degree of omniscience in a newborn necessary for you, or is there another way in which you can imagine the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ of faith?

StAnastasia

 

[reggieM]

It is obvious that the catechesis in your part of the country failed to include the difference between the Mystical Body of Christ and the visible society of the Catholic Church. Even the concept of world view is not accurate regarding Catholicism in the first century and in this century. I am so sorry.

Someone who says that “The Church is a human institution embedded in a perennially changing society, and her dogmas need to be reinterpreted by each generation.” is de facto promoting a new church according to the “feminist agenda”.

My apology to my sisters for using feminist in this way; but this is the old Midwest term for what StAnastasia is referring to. In other words, there are a number of vocal people who prefer to stay “catholic” because they want to change Catholicism into a new church from within.

Granny – thanks for an excellent and insightful post here. I agree 100% and you describe the problem well. I’ve seen some of the very destructive effects of this new-church mentality in my own diocese.

 

[StAnastasia]

All the new and modern wishful interpretations of Catholicism cannot change the truth. Even the distortions (of Catholic dogma) found in classrooms and in congregations will never bring down the Mystical Body of Christ. The remnants remain to grow strong again.

And all the desperate wishing to turn science back to the position it was in before Darwin. before Lyell, before Einstein and Crick and Lemaitre, will not make that happen for the Church. Regardless of what you wish, we live in 2009, not 1786!

 

[reggieM]

All the new and modern wishful interpretations of Catholicism cannot change the truth. Even the distortions (of Catholic dogma) found in classrooms and in congregations will never bring down the Mystical Body of Christ. The remnants remain to grow strong again.

Exactly. The claim is that Jesus Christ supposedly, did not have the power to know or do whatever. That is a judgement against Christ from a materialist-naturalist perspective. The same approach has been used to deny all of the miracles of Christ by claiming that they were natural phenomena.

 

[grannymh]

The neuroscientific implications are rather large, to think that a baby’s brain could contain complete knowledge of every human language that has ever existed (at least 100,000), details of every historical event that had happened and that would happen in the next 2,000 years, modern scientific knowledge in every field from cosmology and physics to biology, geology, and genetics, etc. Is this degree of omniscience in a newborn necessary for you, or is there another way in which you can imagine the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ of faith?

StAnastasia

On the other hand, obviously omniscience in a newborn human (Homo sapiens) is a different matter than omniscience in a Divine being. In my humble opinion, it looks as if the Hypostatic Union and modern Arianism have also been excluded from the catechesis in your area. I am so sorry.

Regarding your question about imagining the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ of Faith. Catholic teaching is that they are one and the same.

 

[grannymh]

And all the desperate wishing to turn science back to the position it was in before Darwin. before Lyell, before Einstein and Crick and Lemaitre, will not make that happen for the Church. Regardless of what you wish, we live in 2009, not 1786!

Excuse me.

After at least a hundred miles of posts regarding “faith” and “science” – how is it that the distinctive realms of “faith” and “science” are still being misconstrued?

 

[StAnastasia]

In my humble opinion, it looks as if the Hypostatic Union and modern Arianism have also been excluded from the catechesis in your area. I am so sorry.
.

You’re wrong.

 

[grannymh]

You’re wrong.

Seems to me those were the words yelled at the silly people facing smiling lions.

 

[edwest2]

And all the desperate wishing to turn science back to the position it was in before Darwin. before Lyell, before Einstein and Crick and Lemaitre, will not make that happen for the Church. Regardless of what you wish, we live in 2009, not 1786!

The desperate attempts made here and elsewhere to correct God and thereby, His Church, show to what degree the worship of the mind of man has increased. When was the last time someone you know created a universe out of nothing? Your words bring to mind the lament of Carl Sagan, “I don’t want to believe. I want to know!”

Your words are the epitome of “Man is the measure of all things.” and “Man invents himself.” You post here to profit what? The Church or the gospel according to science?

And once again, you show how much you love the calendar myth that says by the passing of days, man becomes wiser. Did knowledge or wisdom or enlightenment pour into anyone’s head the moment the calendar changed from the 20th to the 21st Century? No!

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ed_CA]

One must be very cautious about defending one’s perception of orthodoxy. In
Alexandria, Christian mobs burnt the famous library on the pretext that the knowledge
contained therein was pagan. Similarly, just because since some scientists are atheists
does not render their research invalid.
Saul was defending his faith on the way to Damascus, but later, Paul used his
Judaic-Greco -Roman knowledge to become a great apostle. Today’s heretic may become tomorrow’s saint. During his life, St Thomas Aquinas was accused of heresy, but later he was declared a Doctor of the Church. Dr. Teillard de Chardin, SJ has a wonderful series of books that unifies evolution with theology. Initially, he was also accused of heresy and silenced, but now his insights are gaining much recognition. He is an example of a scientist who was convinced evolution occurs as part of God’s plan.

Is creation static and finished on October 20, 4004BC at 11 AM UT, or is it dynamic?
Why are staph and tuberculosis bacteria apparently “evolving” immunities to an ever increasing spectrum of drugs? What is the explanation of this fact?

Again, the perplexing question is whether defending a perceived notion of orthodoxy has
the highest priority, or adhering to the two greatest commandments of the Law?

 

[reggieM]

it looks as if the Hypostatic Union and modern Arianism have also been excluded from the catechesis in your area…

Awesome reply.

I had a private message from a CAF member who was concerned that with so many posts about science and so much thinking from a naturalist-materialist perspective, are we really being formed more like Christ every day? Or are we becoming more materialistic (and losing faith)?

Science is a great gift that God has given us all, but like anything, it can be abused and exaggerated. For many, it is a substitution for faith.

“We believe …” That means, that even when we’re confounded by various things, we have faith that God will reveal His truth (He will reveal Himself to us). When we encounter various mysteries of God’s universe, that is not a bad thing.

Rash conclusions about how “the Church must change dogmas” will end up in foolishness. The Marxists of a prior generation said the same thing (as have heretics since the apostolic age) and God humiliated every one of them in time.