I’ve seen you making this argument before, and I still don’t understand it. “The textbook” assigns “purely natural” causes to the existence of life on earth, yes… but that does not necessarily imply that there are no other causes. There’s nothing wrong with “the textbook” only addressing natural causes, since those are the only causes proper to the science. The student simply needs to understand that “these causes” discovered through biology don’t necessarily exclude “those causes” discovered from philosophy, and that in fact it is necessary for both to be known in order to reach the fullest understanding of the truth.
Exactly.
And what would you say if I said something this… (?)
Science can purify religion from error and superstition [ex. young earth creationism].
Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes [ex. materialism, determinism].
Especially today, Creationist and Evolutionist are political terms just like Democrat and Republican, making them useless for research purposes in that context. Also, in the encyclical Humani Generis, it is clear that the Church welcomes research into evolution but mentions that claims for and against must be examined.
So-called Young Earth Creationism is not based on fantasy, but on anomolous reports. Fossilized trees extending through many strata of rock. Relatively recent reports of animals that appear to be dinosaurs. Finally, one needs to examine supernatural claims made by religions like Christianity.
On this forum, we are outside the science lab and can properly examine all this information.
Let us look at the public school system. Throughout its early days, the Bible was used in public schools in the United States as a standard text. In the early 1960s, kids recited the Pledge of Allegiance, which included the phrase: “One nation, under God…” An atheist was upset by this nonspecific God reference and we no longer said it. I think you’ve noticed the increased segregation of God and religious expression in the public square. Statues and memorials that have stood for decades have been removed. While I do not favor forcing my beliefs on anyone, a clear hostility toward religious expression in public has emerged. One good example, used here, is the conditioned response some have to the term Intelligent Design. It is not regarded as an interesting curiosity to be examined if you want, but like the plague, to be avoided at all costs. The few people who ask for evidence do not seem to be aware of the work done so far. I’ve seen a clearly biased reaction.
Would you like a reference to the Scientific American article from the turn of the last century that discounted as nonsense that the Wright brothers had flown a powered aircraft?
Children in public schools are not likely to get the full answer. If I said Britney or Angelina, they would respond. If I said DNA? The social order is different now and with renewed atheism, children are less likely to view religion as meaningful or relevant. Philosophy is no help if your reading skills are at the 8th grade level or lower. And with declining church attendance, odds are parents have little to share also.
Evolution according to the textbook is complete in and of itself, it needs nothing outside of it. Is that clear? Also, Cardinal Schoenborn and Pope Benedict have had to respond to scientists who go outside the bounds of what can be demonstrated by science to say evolution negates a role for God. Is that clear? Then people like Professor Richard Dawkins use their credentials and standing in the scientific community to go on television and say, “We no longer believe in the Greek or Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.” He then goes on to give the textbook explanation of evolution. The average child watches 4 hours of TV a day. The connection is clear.
God bless,
Ed
