Evolution In The Classroom

[edwest2]

The problem is one of method - no millions of votes ortherwise can alter the fact that scientific research operates by methods which are proper to what it is - IOW, that are proper to scientific research. The appropriateness of a method of study or research is based on the character of what is studied; it is dependent on what a sort of thing the thing studied is. IOW, appropriateness of method is based on metaphysical realism; it is called for by the nature of the object of study; rather than imposed upon the object of study without regard for what is being studied.​

Theology’s methods are not appropriate methods for scientific study - and without a method, and an appropriate one at that, study of any subject is impossible. It’s inappropriate because the proper object of theology is different from the objects proper to the physical sciences; to study chemistry as though it were formally a part of ecclesiology would be absurd, and useless; chemistry must be studied by means appropriate to its nature; which excludes treating it as a part of theology. The place for Bible study or offering Mass is not a laboratory; there are other, more appropriate, places & occasions for those activities.

You refer to chemistry and exclude it from theology. If that were true, then there would be no posts here about applying say, biology, to religion. But the internet is like an open door to a private home or a church. That is why I have used various ways to illustrate my point.

“Hey. All youse Katlics. I gots science here dat sez your Bible is wrong, here, here an here. An if you don’ listen to da facts I’m gonna call you names or mention yer saints or popes or somethin till youse pay attention, cause I gots evidence.”

Your reasonable comments do not keep the Bible explainers away who see fit to sidestep miraculous events and substitute what they believe to be “reasonable” explanations. Thank you for that brief rational interlude. We will now be returning to what I call ‘the insistence argument’ via the science which is silent about God.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Resistance to what? Synthetic antibiotics?

Yes, because almost all antibiotics, including synthetic ones are based on modes of operation derived from naturally occurring antibiotics, so that a resistance strategy that evolved to target a natural antibiotic is immediately targeted on synthetic antibiotics or can be modified to be efficacious against synthetic antibiotics by a small number of mutations. This is relevant to to the correction I offered you earlier. Now it’s time for you to stop using this argument.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

But I see your point. Post-modernism points at an absolute of relativism (ironically in itself), but then you don’t have to adhere to all of it to appreciate the application of some of it, do you?

Post-modernism does provide that irony – and I agree that it is a refutation of modernism, but not in the manner of moving back towards Catholic realism, but by moving farther from any fixed values or truths.

Some parts of Post-modernism can be validly applied to Catholics issues – maybe like borrowing some aspects of post-modernist pluralism when approaching ecumenical matters.

It would be true also to say that the Holy See has not explicitly condemned Post-modernism, but that is mainly because its not represented by a theological body of some kind. I think Post-modernism refutes theological-modernism by rejecting formal religion entirely (where Modernism sought to reform it).

 

[grannymh]

Pardon me. It looks as if you have attributed to me certain popular ideas which I have not referred to. I do understand how easy it is to lump people into a “group”.

Once religious faith is admitted as an appropriate tool for scientific research, it becomes impossible to exclude any religion - so all become admissible. Unless of course one is to exclude Baal-worshippers, etc., from engaging in scientific study - but on what grounds ?

Like any scientist, I have never said religious faith is an actual tool for scientific research. I prefer tools of empirical research when it comes to the material/energy of the universe. Excluding anyone from engaging in scientific study is repugnant.

If a scientist wishes to adore god Baal, there is nothing to prevent him so doing - but Baal-worship is not a sound method for scientific research. And neither is adoration of the Deity of Christians.

I have never said that religious worship is a method of research. I have said that knowledge can be obtained by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

Which is why doctors prescribe pills for epilepsy, rather than praying and fasting for their patients. For epilepsy, like thunder, earthquakes, and drought, has natural causes which can profitably, appropriately, and informatively be studied by scientific methods. Such methods are valuable because they study what can be controlled and compared & analysed & discussed with one’s peers - tsunamis can be compared and analysed, because they are accessible in that very way. Which is not true of explanation by divine action -

I consider scientific methods as normally concerned with the material universe around us.

Baal & Zeus & Jehovah can all be credited with causing thunder, because no one has ever seen them at work directly. Baal cannot be photographed. Poseidon cannot be interviewed. But the pathology of a form of epilepsy, or of cancer, or of other ills, can be studied in ways such as these.

Of course pathology has to use empirical methods. The idea of crediting Zeus, or the next door neighbors for example, “with causing thunder because no one has ever seen them at work directly” is unscientific and depending on one’s sense of humor, rather funny.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

It would be true also to say that the Holy See has not explicitly condemned Post-modernism, but that is mainly because its not represented by a theological body of some kind. I think Post-modernism refutes theological-modernism by rejecting formal religion entirely (where Modernism sought to reform it).

Possibly, but I doubt there are many Catholics who would subscribe to that particular aspect of post-modern thought, if that is what it is!

Of course, at the moment, we’re entering a post-postmodern age, apparently, which is bringing about it’s own ideological thrills to wrestle with…

 

[edwest2]

Possibly, but I doubt there are many Catholics who would subscribe to that particular aspect of post-modern thought, if that is what it is!

Of course, at the moment, we’re entering a post-postmodern age, apparently, which is bringing about it’s own ideological thrills to wrestle with…

No, not a post-post modern age! Surely, ideas like this are right up there (down there?) with ideas like political correctness. Who gets to define post-anything? Is there a book or manual that lists the required beliefs/characteristics? How long before the post-post post-modern era? Sheese!

Or do people just sit around and one day, say, “I know! Let’s declare a post-post-post something or other!”?

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Possibly, but I doubt there are many Catholics who would subscribe to that particular aspect of post-modern thought, if that is what it is!

True, but I think the individual I was concerned about subscribes to some very questionable aspects of post-modernism – or just plain modernism.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

True, but I think the individual I was concerned about subscribes to some very questionable aspects of post-modernism – or just plain modernism.

They are very different! Anyway, as far as I can see the post-post modernism which gets me riled seems very much a return to the extremisms of modernism - part of which is the kind of false empirical certainties conjured by the dodgily pseudo-proven “evolution as fact” (just to drag the whole thing back to the thread…)

 

[Mystic_Banana]

No, not a post-post modern age! Surely, ideas like this are right up there (down there?) with ideas like political correctness.

Political correctness? What, you mean Newspeak?

A quote I quite like - “Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning, not a textbook of how to do the future!”

Who gets to define post-anything? Is there a book or manual that lists the required beliefs/characteristics? How long before the post-post post-modern era? Sheese!

Or do people just sit around and one day, say, “I know! Let’s declare a post-post-post something or other!”?

Peace,
Ed

Pretty much - academics, politicians, celebrities, and critics usually… has it ever been any different?

 

[reggieM]

They are very different! Anyway, as far as I can see the post-post modernism which gets me riled seems very much a return to the extremisms of modernism - part of which is the kind of false empirical certainties conjured by the dodgily pseudo-proven “evolution as fact” (just to drag the whole thing back to the thread…)

That’s exactly right, as I see it. Modernism was an attempt to bring spiritual truths in line with the mechanistic ideas of the early 20th century – and that included Darwinism and all the scientific attempts to reduce reality to particles of matter and physical laws.
Then Post-modernism came along as a reaction against that (even they could recognize that scientism was inhuman) and they added some New-Agey sorts of things from psychology and “human potential” sorts of things. But these were still all based on materialism.

 

[edwest2]

That’s exactly right, as I see it. Modernism was an attempt to bring spiritual truths in line with the mechanistic ideas of the early 20th century – and that included Darwinism and all the scientific attempts to reduce reality to particles of matter and physical laws.
Then Post-modernism came along as a reaction against that (even they could recognize that scientism was inhuman) and they added some New-Agey sorts of things from psychology and “human potential” sorts of things. But these were still all based on materialism.

It seems that if something comes from the mind of a man who is recognized as not influenced by religion then whatever the ideas, these are regarded as prefable to any religious based or influenced ideas. You see that in comments from Sam Harris. It amazes him that his fellow scientists might listen to the Pope. In the end, the synthesis of New Age ideas, which allow for pseudo-science, unproven technology or beliefs in ‘guides’ who pass wisdom on to their mortal channel, plus future looking comments by people like Gloria Steinem extolling the virtue of human potential, and you have ideas that attempt to fill in the void created in some people who come to believe that the un-God fettered mind of man bears within it some sort of undefined potential.

The prince of lies creates vain imaginings. Throughout the ages, there have been charlatans and con-men, but surely not today They are here, repackaged, relabeled and coming up with new phrases to catch your attention - raise your consciousness, unleash your hidden power, empowerment, the recent ‘many paths to god’ as mentioned by a popular talk show host. Whichever idea appears to resonate most with the public gets some grease until it runs its course and something ‘new’ takes its place.

Creationism is the new definition for religion. Saying, we must keep creationism out of the classroom is actually saying we must keep religion out of the public school.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mystic_Banana]

That’s exactly right, as I see it. Modernism was an attempt to bring spiritual truths in line with the mechanistic ideas of the early 20th century – and that included Darwinism and all the scientific attempts to reduce reality to particles of matter and physical laws.
Then Post-modernism came along as a reaction against that (even they could recognize that scientism was inhuman) and they added some New-Agey sorts of things from psychology and “human potential” sorts of things. But these were still all based on materialism.

I kind of think they couldn’t bring themselves to let go… one of the things I like about the whole hippy period is that they did attempt full-on spirituality at times, but it all so often ends up disappearing into Campbell-esque and/or neo-pantheist idealism.

Which is ultimately, spirituality as naught but comforting psychologcal illusion, as far as I’m concerned… no spirituality at all!

 

[edwest2]

I kind of think they couldn’t bring themselves to let go… one of the things I like about the whole hippy period is that they did attempt full-on spirituality at times, but it all so often ends up disappearing into Campbell-esque and/or neo-pantheist idealism.

Which is ultimately, spirituality as naught but comforting psychologcal illusion, as far as I’m concerned… no spirituality at all!

The Hippies were promised a total cultural revolution. Down with the Establisment. Power to the people. And, a Woodstock Nation of peace and love. But when you throw in drugs like marijuana, LSD and hashish and refer to them as “mind expanding,” you could end up in a psych ward or dead or suffer flashbacks for many years. Or find your girlfriend pregnant and you and/or her on welfare. “Let’s drop acid and listen to Hendrix” is not a life plan.

Peace,
Ed

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Bacteria can exchange bits of genetic material with other species of bacteria

Dude… go to school or something!

 

[hecd2]

Dude… go to school or something!

Ed is right about the fact that lateral gene transfer can occur between different species of bacteria. There are at least three known processes by which interspecific gene transfer occurs in bacteria.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[reggieM]

I kind of think they couldn’t bring themselves to let go… one of the things I like about the whole hippy period is that they did attempt full-on spirituality at times, but it all so often ends up disappearing into Campbell-esque and/or neo-pantheist idealism.

Which is ultimately, spirituality as naught but comforting psychologcal illusion, as far as I’m concerned… no spirituality at all!

Interesting. There was a hunger for spirituality and there were all sorts of seekers of something beyond materialism. I know a number of traditional Catholics who lived through that era and they returned to the Church - with more wisdom and also more appreciation for the depth of Catholic spirituality.

It took me a long time to discover that the hippy movement actually had some authentic roots. It wasn’t very deep but there was the appreciation of St. Francis for example – his radical faith and his embrace of poverty and love for God’s creation.

But I learned also that the Catholics-turned-hippies had the advantage of solid catechesis and the Catholic structures of old – so when they left the Church they didn’t plunge directly into hard-core atheism, but they started looking for Eastern religions (following the Beatles, etc) and esoteric spiritual practices.

But the generations following them had little or none of the traditional Catholic teaching, and they are ending up with the kind of narrow-minded atheism that we see so often. The spiritual search of the hippie period is ridiculed as a flower-power thing.

 

[edwest2]

Interesting. There was a hunger for spirituality and there were all sorts of seekers of something beyond materialism. I know a number of traditional Catholics who lived through that era and they returned to the Church - with more wisdom and also more appreciation for the depth of Catholic spirituality.

It took me a long time to discover that the hippy movement actually had some authentic roots. It wasn’t very deep but there was the appreciation of St. Francis for example – his radical faith and his embrace of poverty and love for God’s creation.

But I learned also that the Catholics-turned-hippies had the advantage of solid catechesis and the Catholic structures of old – so when they left the Church they didn’t plunge directly into hard-core atheism, but they started looking for Eastern religions (following the Beatles, etc) and esoteric spiritual practices.

But the generations following them had little or none of the traditional Catholic teaching, and they are ending up with the kind of narrow-minded atheism that we see so often. The spiritual search of the hippie period is ridiculed as a flower-power thing.

Having lived through the period, the Hippies were offering “something else.” I doubt they were the ones stocking the book shelves around Wayne State University or Ann Arbor with books about Eastern religions in the early 1970s. Well educated Catholics were wondering where all of this was coming from and were curious, so I read books about Eastern religions. Peole like Alan Watts were popular. Even though we were called conformists, I think we saw what was going on around us regarding the counter-culture and wanted to understand it.

In my view, even though there were some Jesus Freaks, most of the experimenting and/or learning about Eastern mysticism was a veneer for something else. Underground newspapers like the Fifth Estate or Ann Arbor Sun may have talked about such things but the end result did not increase consciousness or radically change the world at large for the better. The Hare Krishnas dancing and chanting in front of the Hudson’s on Woodward had little to offer spiritually.

Finally, after all the underground marketing disappeared, I saw too many of my fellow Catholics join the culture around them that had decided human sexuality existed outside of what the Church defined and society practiced prior to the 1970s. This damage to the family would continue to the present day. It didn’t matter if you joined a commune or opened a People’s Food Co-Op. I felt badly for my once conventional guy turned Hippie friend who told me, “I don’t need a piece of paper to live with my old lady.” and that people committing fornication were “performing natural acts.” It was strange to watch someone turn into a top graduate of Hippie Boot Camp. The long hair, regular dope smoking and conscientious objector to the war in Vietnam (the one thing we agreed on). Who was going to catechize anyone if you named your kid Moon Unit and it didn’t matter if you were married? Mom, dad, priests and nuns had nothing to offer members of the Woodstock Nation. Something new was coming, we were told, but it never arrived.

Peace,
Ed

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

Ed is right about the fact that lateral gene transfer can occur between different species of bacteria. There are at least three known processes by which interspecific gene transfer occurs in bacteria.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

My apologies, i picked him up incorrectly. I was under this impression that he was using the age old “its still a bacteria”, as if bacteria is a species.

Thats what happens when you post after a bottle and a half of red .

Apologies ed.

 

[reggieM]

Finally, after all the underground marketing disappeared, I saw too many of my fellow Catholics join the culture around them that had decided human sexuality existed outside of what the Church defined and society practiced prior to the 1970s. This damage to the family would continue to the present day.

True – that is what happened on a wide scale. The new-found interest in Eastern spiritualities didn’t last and any higher-principles were driven out by the demands of lust and hedonism. Catholics were deluded into thinking that Eastern practices offered something more than Catholic mysticism did and they picked up a hodge-podge of ideas which ultimately didn’t create the inner transformation they were looking for.

Tying it back to atheistic-evolution … it was a gradual movement from faith in the supernatural to belief in material progress alone and ultimately scientism. When it was proven that the New Age spiritualities didn’t offer anything (and some were easy to ridicule), then evolutionary-progess (Teilhard) became the primary focus and goal of life.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

True – that is what happened on a wide scale. The new-found interest in Eastern spiritualities didn’t last and any higher-principles were driven out by the demands of lust and hedonism. Catholics were deluded into thinking that Eastern practices offered something more than Catholic mysticism did and they picked up a hodge-podge of ideas which ultimately didn’t create the inner transformation they were looking for.

Tying it back to atheistic-evolution … it was a gradual movement from faith in the supernatural to belief in material progress alone and ultimately scientism. When it was proven that the New Age spiritualities didn’t offer anything (and some were easy to ridicule), then evolutionary-progess (Teilhard) became the primary focus and goal of life.

Actually, new age pantheism may well be making a come back… ties in neatly with ecologism. All a bit ridiculous really - it’s like the 20th century saw scientific progessivism wreck half the world, and now it’s cuddling up with the pantheism it opposed (and opposed it) in opposition to panentheism, which appears to be rejected and blamed by both…