Evolution In The Classroom

[grannymh]

As a person who is a non-Christian, your motivation for arguing for this or that interpretation of the Bible is unclear.

Peace,
Ed

In my humble opinion, the Bible is an universal collection of important documents. It is available to all. It is not necessary for anyone to believe in Christianity in order to search out meanings in Scripture. The Bible is a beautiful source for answers to life’s basic questions. Human nature being what it is, anyone can argue for this or that interpretation of Scripture passages.

That being said. It is my belief that the Catholic Church is in the best position to interpret Divine Revelation contained in the Bible. This is done through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm is the on line edition of this Catechism.

 

[rossum]

As a person who is a non-Christian, your motivation for arguing for this or that interpretation of the Bible is unclear.

Truth is important. The truths of the age of the universe, the age of the earth, the origin of life and the origin of species are important. My motivation is truth.

rossum

 

[soma]

I am a Christian and I am ashamed that people dis-respect the Bible as a spiritual book and suggest that it is a science book or a law book to throw at people. People can believe in Evolution and the Bible.

 

[rossum]

‘can’ is but a possibility.

Welcome to science. Possibilities are all you will get in science; if you want absolute truths then you are in the wrong place. Every scientific measurement comes with error bars. Every scientific theory is provisional. Science studies the material world, and since we do not know everything there is to know about the material world we can never be sure that we have the final answer. All we have is the best answer we have so far.

But what are the chances of changing from an amoeba to a donkey, or ‘progressing’ along such a path?

If you want to calculate a probability then you will need a model. We know that there are at least six billion different ways to make a human being; there are a lot more ways than that if you think about it carefully. There are also billions of ways to make an amoeba. Between any one amoeba and any one human being there are a multitude of possible pathways. You have billions of possible starting points, billions of possible end points and billions of possible pathways. You do the calculation; what is the chance of any one of those billions of billions of billions of possibilities happening?

If ‘beneficial’ mutations are those that continue life

No, both neutral and beneficial mutations continue life. You need to learn more about genetics.

I see no explanation as to why simple organisms would benefit from becoming more complex ones

Big fish eat little fish. Size can be an advantage. Is it easier to kill a rabbit or an elephant?

I’m not reifying nature. If nature does not literally pick or choose, the word ‘selection’ is nothing but an obfuscation of pure chance.

Why this obsession with “pure chance”. Natural selection is not a chance process, it is an effect of the number of fertile offspring you have - loosely the number of grandchildren. Two eagle chicks hatch. One chick has a mutation that renders it blind, the other chick has normal eyesight. On average, which chick is going to have more descendants? Do you think that the result is “pure chance”? You are criticising a strawman here.

There is not one aspect of your explanation which detracts from the core point of the immense unlikelihood of that

Do you really think that it is immensely unlikely that the blind chick will have fewer offspring than the sighted chick? Strange.

rossum

 

[edwest2]

Truth is important. The truths of the age of the universe, the age of the earth, the origin of life and the origin of species are important. My motivation is truth.

rossum

Your motivation is truth? Based on what? Science? I don’t think so.

There are no peer reviewed, scientific papers on the Bible. None. And by that I mean truths held in the deposit of faith. Jesus raised the dead without science, turned water to wine without science and gave sight to the blind without science. If Jesus can calm the sea and stop the wind, let us, at least momentarily, agree that these are things a God could do, whether you regard Him as real or not, OK?

Now to state that the earth cannot be 6,000 years old over and over again does not make it true. Perhaps the universe is old and the earth is young. You are simply wedded to a series of beliefs that have gained momentum since the publication of Darwin’s book. It is true that men in the 1800s lacked certain technologies but the basics of propaganda had long been established. As I’ve written before, I have no reason to believe the dating methods are accurate. And I have less and less reason to believe science is searching for the truth. It has become an instrument for social engineering and engineering consent, which is going on here constantly.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I am a Christian and I am ashamed that people dis-respect the Bible as a spiritual book and suggest that it is a science book or a law book to throw at people. People can believe in Evolution and the Bible.

You should then ask all of the people here who use science to comment on something that they say it is silent about: God and the Bible. They have no business coming here to say, based on nothing, that your Bible is wrong, here, here and here.

Read your Bible. Through one man sin entered the world. A man, not a hominid.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

In my humble opinion, the Bible is an universal collection of important documents. It is available to all. It is not necessary for anyone to believe in Christianity in order to search out meanings in Scripture. The Bible is a beautiful source for answers to life’s basic questions. Human nature being what it is, anyone can argue for this or that interpretation of Scripture passages.

That being said. It is my belief that the Catholic Church is in the best position to interpret Divine Revelation contained in the Bible. This is done through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm is the on line edition of this Catechism.

And what is our mission as Catholics? To preach the Gospel to the whole world. And to present the Bible as simply a book of good ideas diminishes what the Bible is: The Word of God. At every Mass, what does does the reader say: “This is the word of God.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

And what is our mission as Catholics? To preach the Gospel to the whole world. And to present the Bible as simply a book of good ideas diminishes what the Bible is: The Word of God. At every Mass, what does does the reader say: “This is the word of God.”

Peace,
Ed

I do understand what you intended to say. But, may I ask that you understand what I am saying. There can be no denying that the Bible is a beautiful source for answers to life’s basic questions. These questions are in the Catholic Catechism. Yes, the truths of the meaning of life and death and eternal life are important documents and they apply universally independently of a reader’s belief system.

And our mission is to preach the Gospel. We need to respect others as Jesus respected others. Notice how gently Jesus treated the woman at the well. If offering the Bible as a book of good ideas will get the message of Jesus into someone’s hands–by all means we should offer the Bible. The Word of God will always be the Word of God.

Notice that Jesus first respected the woman at the well and then He explained Who He was. Likewise, we should offer the message of Jesus and then offer our belief in Catholicism. Or offer Catholicism first as the situation warrants. In any case, we should be prepared to offer the truths found in the Catechism. That is why I closed my post with these words.

That being said. It is my belief that the Catholic Church is in the best position to interpret Divine Revelation contained in the Bible. This is done through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm is the on line edition of this Catechism.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[rossum]

Your motivation is truth? Based on what? Science? I don’t think so.

Thank you for using you mind reading powers to tell me what I think ed. Science is one of many ways in which humans can approach truth. Buddhism is another way and Christianity yet a third. There are many ways to approach truth.

There are no peer reviewed, scientific papers on the Bible. None. And by that I mean truths held in the deposit of faith. Jesus raised the dead without science, turned water to wine without science and gave sight to the blind without science. If Jesus can calm the sea and stop the wind, let us, at least momentarily, agree that these are things a God could do, whether you regard Him as real or not, OK?

Jesus existed. From what I can see He was a Bodhisattva and hence would have been able to perform miracles - other Bodhisattvas are recorded as performing miracles also.

Now to state that the earth cannot be 6,000 years old over and over again does not make it true.

You do not seem to realise just how wrong a young earth is. YECs say that the earth is 6,000 years old. Science says 4.5 billion years old. That is a factor of 750,000; equivalent to saying the New York is less than six metres from San Francisco, instead of over 4,000 kilometres. Science does not give exact answers, but it does give answers to a better accuracy than that. We can tell that the correct distance is much closer to 4,000 Km than it is to 6 m.

If we take the age of the universe as 13.5 billion years then the YEC error factor is 2,250,000 and the distance from New York to San Francisco is less than two metres, about six feet! New York to London is only eight feet - we can easily build a bridge across the Atlantic. YEC timescales are absurdly wrong.

Perhaps the universe is old and the earth is young.

And perhaps New York is only 6 m from San Francisco but there is a conspiracy among the airline companies to make us think that it is further so they can charge us more money to fly.

As I’ve written before, I have no reason to believe the dating methods are accurate.

They are accurate enough to tell the difference between 4,100 Km and 6 m.

rossum

 

[twinc]

“Individuals reproduce; populations evolve.”

The material part of humans is animal - we have eyes like other animals, we have legs like other animals, we have fur/hair like other animals etc. In biological terms we are animals.

rossum

yeh speaks of same designer but we are not animals nor akin to apes especially as regards transplants or blood transfusion but snakes blood and pigs milk etc - nor are we alike in flesh as clearly stated not by evolution pseudo science but by the bible at 1Cor.15:38-39 - twinc

 

[buffalo]

What I usually say is: “Your interpretation of the Bible is wrong …”. A YEC who claims “The Bible says that the earth is 6,000 years old,” is wrong. The earth is more than 6,000 years old. This is not a problem with the Bible per se, it is a problem with the YEC’s overly literal interpretation of the Bible. There are many other Christians who believe in the Bible but do not agree with this particular YEC interpretation.

But it can design antennae for NASA: Automated Antenna Design. Christianity is not needed to drive a truck, or flip a burger or to design cruise missiles either - does that make Christianity worthless in the real world as well?

Some claims based on the Bible are testable, as with the YEC example above; other claims are not. Those claims that have an impact on the material world are testable by science, for example:

• A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit.
• Regulation of the Neural Circuitry of Emotion by Compassion Meditation: Effects of Meditative Expertise.

The first is a scientific test of the effects of prayer and the second is a scientific test of the effects of meditation. In both cases the physical impact in the material world is being measured - something that is within the ambit of science.

rossum

On the other hand just observing God’s nature led us to fractal antennas for cell phones.

 

[buffalo]

I am a Christian and I am ashamed that people dis-respect the Bible as a spiritual book and suggest that it is a science book or a law book to throw at people. People can believe in Evolution and the Bible.

Please share with us how one goes separating out which elements are to be ignored.

 

[buffalo]

Welcome to science. Possibilities are all you will get in science; if you want absolute truths then you are in the wrong place. Every scientific measurement comes with error bars. Every scientific theory is provisional. Science studies the material world, and since we do not know everything there is to know about the material world we can never be sure that we have the final answer. All we have is the best answer we have so far.

If you want to calculate a probability then you will need a model. We know that there are at least six billion different ways to make a human being; there are a lot more ways than that if you think about it carefully. There are also billions of ways to make an amoeba. Between any one amoeba and any one human being there are a multitude of possible pathways. You have billions of possible starting points, billions of possible end points and billions of possible pathways. You do the calculation; what is the chance of any one of those billions of billions of billions of possibilities happening?

No, both neutral and beneficial mutations continue life. You need to learn more about genetics.

Big fish eat little fish. Size can be an advantage. Is it easier to kill a rabbit or an elephant?

Why this obsession with “pure chance”. Natural selection is not a chance process, it is an effect of the number of fertile offspring you have - loosely the number of grandchildren. Two eagle chicks hatch. One chick has a mutation that renders it blind, the other chick has normal eyesight. On average, which chick is going to have more descendants? Do you think that the result is “pure chance”? You are criticising a strawman here.

Do you really think that it is immensely unlikely that the blind chick will have fewer offspring than the sighted chick? Strange.

rossum

If you are a virus it doesn’t much matter what size your victim is.

 

[twinc]

Welcome to science. Possibilities are all you will get in science; if you want absolute truths then you are in the wrong place. Every scientific measurement comes with error bars. Every scientific theory is provisional. Science studies the material world, and since we do not know everything there is to know about the material world we can never be sure that we have the final answer. All we have is the best answer we have so far.

If you want to calculate a probability then you will need a model. We know that there are at least six billion different ways to make a human being; there are a lot more ways than that if you think about it carefully. There are also billions of ways to make an amoeba. Between any one amoeba and any one human being there are a multitude of possible pathways. You have billions of possible starting points, billions of possible end points and billions of possible pathways. You do the calculation; what is the chance of any one of those billions of billions of billions of possibilities happening?

No, both neutral and beneficial mutations continue life. You need to learn more about genetics.

Big fish eat little fish. Size can be an advantage. Is it easier to kill a rabbit or an elephant?

Why this obsession with “pure chance”. Natural selection is not a chance process, it is an effect of the number of fertile offspring you have - loosely the number of grandchildren. Two eagle chicks hatch. One chick has a mutation that renders it blind, the other chick has normal eyesight. On average, which chick is going to have more descendants? Do you think that the result is “pure chance”? You are criticising a strawman here.

Do you really think that it is immensely unlikely that the blind chick will have fewer offspring than the sighted chick? Strange.

rossum

Being unable to select or run away,this is where survival of the fittest comes a cropper for the blind chick will have more chicks - twinc

 

[rossum]

yeh speaks of same designer

Animal is a description of objects with certain properties - we have those properties so we are animals.

Design is one possible explanation for similarities between animals, common descent is another such explanation. Both can explain similarities in working subsystems. It is more difficult for design to explain repeated identical errors in non-working subsystems. Why would an intelligent designer duplicate a broken subsystem? All the great apes, including ourselves, have a broken Vitamin-C synthesis system. The systems are broken in the same way in the same place. What sort of designer repeats identical mistakes?

but we are not animals nor akin to apes especially as regards transplants or blood transfusion but snakes blood and pigs milk etc - nor are we alike in flesh as clearly stated not by evolution pseudo science but by the bible at 1Cor.15:38-39 - twinc

We cannot use snake blood in pigs either. Does that mean that either snakes or pigs are not animals? Blood compatibility is not used to decide what is or is not an animal. Milk is exclusive to mammals; pigs are mammals and have milk, we are ammmals and have milk, snakes are reptiles and do not have milk.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Being unable to select or run away,this is where survival of the fittest comes a cropper for the blind chick will have more chicks - twinc

Eagles hunt by sight - how will the blind chick find food once it leaves the nest? How will it avoid predators if it cannot see them coming? It has a far smaller chance of surviving to maturity than its sighted sibling. It will probably either starve or be eaten by a predator. Its genes are very unlikely to make it into the next generation.

rossum

 

[twinc]

First day on the forum. Currently debating a coworker about God in the classroom. Reading a book, Case For Creation, that says science is debunking a lot of Darwin’s theory on evolution. Science is showing an intelligence behind our existence versus God playing no role according to Darwin. My argument with him is I think you need to present both sides in the science class. Seems like our society is working hard to take God out of everything. Do you think this is ideology driven keeping God out of the classroom? Thanks!

Chuck

Hi Chuck - again and again it is stated that creation science is not science and cannot be allowed in a science class.That is not true but a lie but what is a lie and not true is allowed in a science class.Evolution of the real Evolutionists and the phony/pseudo science of the phony/pseudo Evolutionists is impossible and cannot be and has never been is pseudo science seeking acceptance as True Science to be taught in the classroom - twinc

 

[twinc]

Eagles hunt by sight - how will the blind chick find food once it leaves the nest? How will it avoid predators if it cannot see them coming? It has a far smaller chance of surviving to maturity than its sighted sibling. It will probably either starve or be eaten by a predator. Its genes are very unlikely to make it into the next generation.

rossum

it will stay put[freeze] and escape the hawk and survive.The story is told about the rabbits being chased by hounds instead of running for their lives,stayed put and out numbered the hounds - twinc

 

[twinc]

Animal is a description of objects with certain properties - we have those properties so we are animals.

Design is one possible explanation for similarities between animals, common descent is another such explanation. Both can explain similarities in working subsystems. It is more difficult for design to explain repeated identical errors in non-working subsystems. Why would an intelligent designer duplicate a broken subsystem? All the great apes, including ourselves, have a broken Vitamin-C synthesis system. The systems are broken in the same way in the same place. What sort of designer repeats identical mistakes?

For you,this could well be a major problem and a stumbling block because unlike proper Catholics perhaps you dont accept the word of God that He does not make mistakes but created everthing perfect[very good]and guess who threw a spanner in the works and messed it all up as is his wont to do it even to this day - twinc

We cannot use snake blood in pigs either. Does that mean that either snakes or pigs are not animals? Blood compatibility is not used to decide what is or is not an animal. Milk is exclusive to mammals; pigs are mammals and have milk, we are ammmals and have milk, snakes are reptiles and do not have milk.

rossum

 

[rossum]

it will stay put[freeze] and escape the hawk and survive.

How does it know the hawk is there if it can’t see the hawk? If it does not move at all it will never find food and will starve. You are clutching at straws here.

rossum