Evolution refuting catholicism?

[ISABUS]

The Challenges for Science:

Education for the Twenty-First Century

** Statement issued after the Workshop held at the **

**Pontifical Academy of Sciences on November 19-20-21, 2001 **

**The challenges of science: education for the 21st Century **

 **We**, members of the **Pontifical Academy of Sciences** **and experts**, after meeting in the Vatican on 19-20-21 Nov. 2001, declare as follows:

The immense and increasingly rapid development of science as an important element in culture bestows a new responsibility on the scientific community, beyond its traditional role of creating new knowledge and new technology. Ensuring proper education in science for every child in the world and, consequently, a better public understanding of science and what science stands for, has become both a necessity and a challenge.

As a belief in the constant capacity of humanity to progress, education requires caring for the children of today and preparing the citizens of tomorrow. Access to knowledge, therefore, is a human right, even more so in the knowledge-based society of the future.

The extremely uneven access to education in today’s world generates profound inequalities. Let us not tolerate the existence of a knowledge divide, in addition to an unacceptable economical divide which also includes a ‘digital divide’. For, unlike the possession of goods, knowledge, when shared, grows and develops.

Education in science for all girls and boys is essential for several reasons. In particular, this education helps:

• To discover the beauty of the world through emotion, imagination, observation, experimentation, reflection and understanding;
• To develop the creativity and rationality which enable humans to understand and communicate;
• To contribute to moral development and sense of values: the search for truth, integrity, humility, and man’s responsibility towards their neighbors and future generations;
• To share the accumulated wealth of knowledge amongst all people, as required by justice and equity;
• To be aware of mankind’s interdependence with the environment and the Universe;
• To enable contributions to the solution of the acute problems facing humanity (poverty, food, energy, the environment);

[Please note that God in any way, shape, or form is NOT mentioned above. Faith (religion) is completely left out of this as it should be! NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN !~ ]

From the perspective of these objectives, it is our conviction that the present state of education in science is of great concern throughout the world, regardless of the local stage of development. In the case of developing countries, in particular, the magnitude of the problem is immense.

(continued)

 

[ISABUS]

(part 2 of 2)

The Challenges for Science:

Education for the Twenty-First Century

** Statement issued after the Workshop held at the **

**Pontifical Academy of Sciences on November 19-20-21, 2001 **

**The challenges of science: education for the 21st century **

After consideration of a number of encouraging experiences in various countries, and the actions of several Academies, we conclude that the following initiatives should be taken without delay, both at a national and an international level. Moreover, they should be shared and integrated within the diversity of cultures found in contemporary societies.

1.   The highest level of attention has to be given to science education in primary and secondary schools, including children with special needs.

2.   Education in science must be seen and implemented as an integral part of the whole of a person's total education (language, history, art, etc.).

3.   The most important contribution to improving education in science at in elementary and secondary education lies in helping teachers and parents to cope with this difficult task. This will involve increased resources, partnership, professional development, social recognition and support for teachers.

4.   Such a challenge cannot be met without the deepest commitment on the part of the various members of the world's scientific and technological community. Meeting this challenge must be viewed as a new moral obligation.

5.   Every means should be used to convey the urgency of the situation to governments. They alone have the capacity to deal with the magnitude of the problem, to provide the necessary resources, and to implement suitable policies. Non-governmental organizations and financial institutions should also participate in such an initiative.

6.   Relevant research on science education should be stimulated and encouraged, and should consider the potential of communication technologies.

What is being called for is a global commitment to revitalize science education at school level with support not only from the teachers, parents and scientists, but entire communities, organizations and Governments, for a better and more peaceful world to live in. Success along these lines, pursued with perseverance and dedication, will constitute a decisive contribution to the socio-economic and cultural development of humanity, the achievement of social justice, and the promotion of human dignity.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...cien_doc_20011005_education_statement_en.html

SCIENCE NOT ID**!**

 

[buffalo]

hecd2:

Really! I have studied the physics of the universe professionally and I find no such conclusion. Have you studied it, and if so just what about gravity or the Big Bang leads you to this conclusion? Is your conclusion based on a deep understanding of phyics or on wishful thinking or on the bidding of your Creationist masters? I think I know the answer to that.

Pot calling kettle black. You have simply ignored Gould’s true position in the forlorn hope that it will go away. It won’t. Lying for Jesus will not get you or anyone else to heaven. Here, again, is what Gould thinks:

''Since modern creatonists…can advance no conceivable argument in the domain of proper logic or accurate empirics, they have always relied, as a primary strategy, upon the misquotation of scientific sources. They have shamelessly distorted all major evolutionists in their behalf, including the most committed gradualists of the Modern Sythesis…Since punctuated equilibrium provides an even easier target for this form of intellectual dishonesty (or crass stupidity if a charge of dishonesty grants them too much acumen), no one should be surprised that our views have become grist for their mills and skills of distortion.

Standard creationist literature on punctuated equilibrium rarely goes beyond the continuous recycling of two false characterizations: the conflation of punctuated equilibrium with the true saltationism of Goldschmidt’s hopeful monsters, and the misscaling of punctuated equilibrium’s genuine breaks between species to the claim that no intermediaries exist for the larger morphological transitions between classes and phyla."

It is *your *intellectual dishonesty that Gould is referring to.

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the death of the Theory of Evolution. That would be bad for your health. You obviously don’t read any scientific journals in which evolution is reinforced on a weekly basis. I estimate that more tahn 25% of papers in Nature and Science rely on and/or reinforce the ToE. Your idea about where science is heading is based on pure wish fulfilment and misinformation, and not at all on the real scientific status of the Modern Synthesis.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

The methodoligical naturalism is what drives these journals. Evolutionists try to fit their data to show there is no God. C’mon now hecd!

 

[buffalo]

ISABUS:

[Please note that God in any way, shape, or form is NOT mentioned above. Faith (religion) is completely left out of this as it should be! NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN !~ ]

Then if science cannot account for the supernatural because of its limited site, we should add a new discipline to study. After all we are after the “whole” truth, not just the “scientific” truth. Aren’t we???

 

[wanerious]

buffalo:

The methodoligical naturalism is what drives these journals. Evolutionists try to fit their data to show there is no God. C’mon now hecd!

No, methodological naturalism is science. It’s kind of a cheap shot to ascribe it only to some journals, and in a pejorative sense. After all these discussions, you surely don’t still believe that all biologists are atheists trying desperately to paint a false picture of the real data, do you? Let’s be a little more charitable.

 

[wanerious]

buffalo:

Then if science cannot account for the supernatural because of its limited site, we should add a new discipline to study. After all we are after the “whole” truth, not just the “scientific” truth. Aren’t we???

Yes, it’s called theology. One may not use science to discern the supernatural.

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

No, methodological naturalism is science. It’s kind of a cheap shot to ascribe it only to some journals, and in a pejorative sense. After all these discussions, you surely don’t still believe that all biologists are atheists trying desperately to paint a false picture of the real data, do you? Let’s be a little more charitable.

While I don’t claim they are deliberately falsifying data (although they have in the past) when you have a particular point of view it tends to influence your research. Science should be pure in that sense.

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

Yes, it’s called theology. One may not use science to discern the supernatural.

Then would you object to having science and theology presented side by side in school?

 

[wanerious]

buffalo:

While I don’t claim they are deliberately falsifying data (although they have in the past) when you have a particular point of view it tends to influence your research. Science should be pure in that sense.

It is — that’s the point. There well may be some atheistic biologists who have an active agenda against a deity of any sort, but if their science is bad, it gets rooted out eventually by the system. The above is just innuendo. Unless you have some specific allegations to make against certain scientists, we ought not to sully their work. I know plenty of Christian astronomers who are not troubled in the least by their professional findings. It simply does not occur to them that there is a conflict.

 

[wanerious]

buffalo:

Then would you object to having science and theology presented side by side in school?

Of course not. I’ve taken plenty of both at the same institutions.

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

Then if science cannot account for the supernatural because of its limited site, we should add a new discipline to study. After all we are after the “whole” truth, not just the “scientific” truth. Aren’t we???

We have such a discipline. It’s called Catholicism.

And Catholicism does not reject evolution.

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

We have such a discipline. It’s called Catholicism.

And Catholicism does not reject evolution.

Please define your term - evolution.

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

Please define your term - evolution.

For five pages, you’ve been arguing against evolution, and you don’t know what it means!?!?

It means the rise of new species from former species through interaction with the environment.

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

For five pages, you’ve been arguing against evolution, and you don’t know what it means!?!?

It means the rise of new species from former species through interaction with the environment.

The question was for you not for me. I know what it means, I also know the implications of certain definitions. I requested a definition of terms.

For the record I have argued against atheistic evolution.

I have argued where evolution has to be further reconciled with Church teachings.

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

The question was for you not for me. I know what it means, I also know the implications of certain definitions. I requested a definition of terms.

For the record I have argued against atheistic evolution.

I have argued where evolution has to be further reconciled with Church teachings.

You have argued in favor of an approach that is both not science and not Catholic.

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

You have argued in favor of an approach that is both not science and not Catholic.

I really don’t care if you label ID science or not. Science is not the exclusive domain of truth and reality. Science is a limited subset of the whole truth by definition. If the truth takes us to new realms then so be it. Eventually wherever it takes us science should be able to validate what is emperical. Now as far as ID not being consistent with Catholicism, I have yet to see where it is in conflict.

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

I really don’t care if you label ID science or not. Science is not the exclusive domain of truth and reality. Science is a limited subset of the whole truth by definition. If the truth takes us to new realms then so be it. Eventually wherever it takes us science should be able to validate what is emperical. Now as far as ID not being consistent with Catholicism, I have yet to see where it is in conflict.

No doubt you see no conflict between Free Masonry (or Christian Science) and Catholicism.

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

No doubt you see no conflict between Free Masonry (or Christian Science) and Catholicism.

Quit beating around the bush and state the objection directly.

 

[vern_humphrey]

buffalo:

Quit beating around the bush and state the objection directly.

How many times do I have to state it for you?

1. It is not the position of the Catholic Church.
2. It is not, despite its claims, either scientific or objective.
3. It bases its conclusions on a theological ground – see 1, above.

 

[buffalo]

vern humphrey:

How many times do I have to state it for you?

1. It is not the position of the Catholic Church.
2. It is not, despite its claims, either scientific or objective.
3. It bases its conclusions on a theological ground – see 1, above.

1. What is the official position of the church?
2. Why is it not objective?
3. So? Many conclusions of the Catholic Church are based on theological grounds.