Flying Spaghetti Monster, what is done to combat them?

[reggieM]

Scientists don’t consider natural laws “accidents”. Atoms don’t just “accidentaly” combine into “random” forms. If scientists believed that, there would be no point in studying it. If it were all accidental, random and chaotic, there would be no patterns to study.

Well, I don’t think this is correct. If the natural laws are not the result of accidents, where did they come from? Atheistic scientists (which are the majority of the scientific population) do, indeed, say that everything came into existence as the result of accidents.

Of course, as you said, it should be obvious that atoms don’t “accidentally” combine into forms which were created by “random”. But that is precisely what evolutionary theory teaches. There is no other “organizing principle” in the universe except random chance.

Otherwise, what else could it be? What do atheistic evolutionists say is the cause of the “order” in the universe. What created the “patterns”?

They are unanimous – it is all due to accident and randomness. Otherwise, there would be an intelligence and a designer – a Law Maker. We call that Designer and Law Maker - God. And that is not only forbidden by current science, but it is totally denied by the atheism the dominates the scientific world.

Otherwise, why not admit that God created the laws and patterns? Why not admit that God directed processes and they never would have happened if there was no God?

Great Catholic scientists of the past admitted that upfront. In fact, it was the foundation of their scientific work. That God, who is perfection, order, intelligence – created natural laws that are consistent and capable of being understood by logic and mathematics. Why? Because that is the nature of God.

 

[Mirdath]

Well, I do fear the imposition of an atheistic model on science. This would mean that God is not the author of the “order” that we see in nature.

Not at all. An agnostic (please, it isn’t atheistic, as exoflare pointed out) view of science does not eliminate the possibility a divine Designer. Science is not capable of discerning or concerned with who created order, it is concerned with that order itself.

Science should admit that the order and laws which are the basis of it’s own study could not have come into existence by accident. But that is never done.

No, it shouldn’t. That order and those laws themselves are the province of science. Who, if anyone, set them in place is the province of philosophy and religion.

Since God is the author of the order that you are talking about, why can’t science admit that? Why must it pretend that there is no God?

It does not. There are religious scientists who follow the scientific method; however, the question of God’s existence and function in and out of the universe is not a question of science. If they wanted to study that, they would be philosophers or theologians (and some of them do in fact take that up as a hobby).

If God shaped the physical reality, why is that not essential to the study of science?

Because ‘God exists and shaped the universe’ is not an experimentally provable hypothesis, nor would it make way for any further developments. Questions about how the universe works and the process of its formation are and do.

Can God break the natural laws? Did God ever break the natural laws? Those are absolutely essential for understanding what the natural laws produced.

How?

How does God move and shape physical matter in the universe? What physical matter did God create directly? Why are those questions not relevant to the study of physical matter and therefore to science?

None of those questions can give rise to hypotheses which can be tested in a laboratory.

Again, the fear is that by eliminating all reference to God – who actually created matter, the laws and the patterns of the universe, there is an assumption that God does not exist.

No, there is an assumption that God is outside the scope of scientific inquiry – which, considering that many definitions of God (including the Christian) hold that he is infinite, intangible, and unknowable to humans, is hardly unacceptable.

That is the spread of atheism and unbelief under the guise of science. Yes, that is something I’m very much afraid of. It’s an abuse of science, as I said. Since God exists, science should be free to make that fact known.

You say God exists; plenty of others don’t. Religious scientists are not afraid to make their faith known, but it is not relevant in the lab. Science is not free to assert that the existence of God is fact, because God’s existence is not a scientifically provable hypothesis. If you need science’s imprimatur to justify your faith, you’re out of luck – were God scientifically provable, there would be no such thing as faith.

 

[Mirdath]

Well, I don’t think this is correct. If the natural laws are not the result of accidents, where did they come from? Atheistic scientists (which are the majority of the scientific population) do, indeed, say that everything came into existence as the result of accidents.

I looked that up, and according to a 1997 study, 40% of scientists professed some form of faith, 45% did not, and the remaining 15% declined to respond. 45% is not a majority. The split’s been almost exactly that way for decades, too.

Of course, as you said, it should be obvious that atoms don’t “accidentally” combine into forms which were created by “random”. But that is precisely what evolutionary theory teaches. There is no other “organizing principle” in the universe except random chance.

Otherwise, what else could it be? What do atheistic evolutionists say is the cause of the “order” in the universe. What created the “patterns”?

Not true. You have the negative and positive charges of electrons and protons attracting, you have the weak and strong nuclear forces, and you have gravitational attraction, and those are just the bare basics of physics. There are loads of other, more complicated principles, not only in physics but in chemistry, biology, and so forth. Please read up on such things before you make these sweeping blanket statements about them; it’s all but impossible to discuss the sciences with someone not in possession of at least a basic understanding of how they work.

They are unanimous – it is all due to accident and randomness. Otherwise, there would be an intelligence and a designer – a Law Maker. We call that Designer and Law Maker - God. And that is not only forbidden by current science, but it is totally denied by the atheism the dominates the scientific world.

It’s not forbidden by science, it’s just not relevant to it as it’s completely unprovable and leads to no other developments. And of course atheism denies it – but atheism is a philosophy and a faith in its own way, and also not relevant to science.

Otherwise, why not admit that God created the laws and patterns? Why not admit that God directed processes and they never would have happened if there was no God?

Because there’s no reason for science to consider the question of God at all. That’s theology.

Great Catholic scientists of the past admitted that upfront. In fact, it was the foundation of their scientific work. That God, who is perfection, order, intelligence – created natural laws that are consistent and capable of being understood by logic and mathematics. Why? Because that is the nature of God.

It was the foundation of their faith; their work was dedicated to the glory of God and the understanding of his creation. So too is the work of modern religious scientists. But questions about God himself are theological in nature, not scientific.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

It was the foundation of their faith; their work was dedicated to the glory of God and the understanding of his creation. So too is the work of modern religious scientists. But questions about God himself are theological in nature, not scientific.

But when the sociologists tell you that Love is merely a product of evolution? A darwinian mechanism that helped man to cooperate and survive? Is that science? And they teach it as science? And then what exposure does the student have to the true worldview since Christ is denied in the classroom?

Science tries to pass itself off as this rigorous monothing and I applaud the physical sciences in trying to strive for that rigor, but science is used to describe psychology which intimates chastity is repressed sexuality? This word science is a devilish word, isn’t it?

 

[reggieM]

This word science is a devilish word, isn’t it?

It is, indeed.

 

[reggieM]

Not at all. An agnostic (please, it isn’t atheistic, as exoflare pointed out) view of science does not eliminate the possibility a divine Designer. Science is not capable of discerning or concerned with who created order, it is concerned with that order itself.

Well, I think something like the science of archeology does, indeed concern itself with who created order. The example of Stonehenge is a very good one. Archeologists could spend time trying to figure out how those rocks accidentally assembled themselves. Did they fall from somewhere? Were they once a stone hill that got eroded? Clearly, the “Designer” of Stonehenge is essential to the science. Otherwise, science will assume that everything happened by accident – and completely incorrect conclusions will result. The same is true in the development of life and the universe. To assume that it all happened by random chance is to deny that a Designer created order and guided things deliberately.

Can God break the natural laws? Did God ever break the natural laws? Those are absolutely essential for understanding what the natural laws produced.

– you asked “How?”

Well, if God broke the natural laws at the beginning of the earth and simply created life with no precedent – that would be essential for science to know. Otherwise the assumption would be that natural laws alone were the cause of all things, and also that the natural laws were always consistent. But if God changed those laws or broke them (through miraculous actions) – then scientists would be totally incorrect to assume that those things never happened. If God created human life through breaking natural laws (a Divine Intervention which created the human soul), then science will continue to be completely wrong when it assumes that human life was created by accident, without any plan or design.

Again, like the Stonehenge example. Scientists conclude that an Intelligence (in this case human intelligence) created that pattern of rocks. That cannot be replicated in a laboratory, but it doesn’t prevent scientists from saying that humans created Stonehenge and it wasn’t just a geological accident. How do they know an Intelligence was behind it? They can’t test it in a lab. They weren’t there when the rocks were assembled. But they make the conclusion because they see the Design in the rocks. They say “it couldn’t happen by accident”. In other words, "its impossible that Stonehenge was an accidental structure.

Why can’t the same thing be said about other Designs found in nature? Why can’t scientists say that it’s “impossible” that DNA, for example, could ever have been caused by random accident? Well, a number of scientists have said that – and one recently became a believer in God based on that very issue (he converted from atheism). He could see that it was impossible to explain the origin of DNA code from random accident. That is science, not philosophy or theology. But science can certainly point to Intelligence behind the order in nature. Einstein saw that order in nature himself. So did the framers of the U.S. constitution. The existence of God as revealed in the Designs of nature are said to be “self-evident”.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Experimental chemistry came from Egypt and the Middle East. It was called ‘alchemy’ after Al-Khem, the ‘Black Land’ or Egypt. Mathematics would have stayed limited to addition and subtraction with Roman numerals until the introduction of Hindu numbers (via the Arabs) and decimals. And a lot of modern engineering comes to us from China, the Middle East, and ancient Greeks and Romans. The whole picture we have now is pretty much a group effort though.

Scientific discoveries do not equal science as a system. I don’t deny that many great advances were made by non-Christians but there is a reason why science as we know it today grew out of Europe and not China or Arabia. The conception of time, of the order of the universe, the notion of creations relationship with its Creator and other differences in outlooks that non-Catholic cultures have do not foster actual science.

As to worldviews, keep in mind that while a lot of the great Western scientists we usually associate with the rise of modern science were Catholic, just as many were Protestant, and an awful lot of them were Jews.

The religion of the individual is irrelevant-they still existed within a Catholic outlook, even in protestant lands. Even philosophies and sciences that have developed in a European world that are hostile to the Church cannot deny the influence of the Catholic world.

 

[Mirdath]

But when the sociologists tell you that Love is merely a product of evolution? A darwinian mechanism that helped man to cooperate and survive? Is that science? And they teach it as science? And then what exposure does the student have to the true worldview since Christ is denied in the classroom?

Sociology first is not a ‘hard’ physical science but almost more one of the humanities. And Christianity is not the ‘true’ worldview in many opinions – if we are to educate students on one religion’s point of view, should we not include all, no matter how odd or contradictory they may seem? Would it not make more sense to teach what we can prove experimentally?

Nor have I heard sociology speculating much on the origin and nature of ‘love’; that’d be psychology, which is a field filled with black boxes. Much remains to be discovered – but I’d rather teach ‘this is what we know’ rather than potential falsehoods.

The human capacity for concepts such as love or humor is one of the great wonders of sociology. They’re traceable to old instincts and behaviors – humor, for example, is an interrupted fright response – but humans have done so much more with them than animals have. It’s one of the things which makes us ‘not animals’; perhaps the only thing.

 

[Mirdath]

reggieM:

Well, I think something like the science of archeology does, indeed concern itself with who created order. The example of Stonehenge is a very good one. Archeologists could spend time trying to figure out how those rocks accidentally assembled themselves. Did they fall from somewhere? Were they once a stone hill that got eroded? Clearly, the “Designer” of Stonehenge is essential to the science. Otherwise, science will assume that everything happened by accident – and completely incorrect conclusions will result. The same is true in the development of life and the universe. To assume that it all happened by random chance is to deny that a Designer created order and guided things deliberately.

Archaeology is one of the humanities. An engineer would be more interested in the construction of Stonehenge.

Anyway, you’re assuming the Watchmaker Theory holds true for the universe. It doesn’t have to. Humans quite obviously designed and built Stonehenge - just as humans obviously designed and constructed the Pyramids. There is no such obvious designer for the universe.

Well, if God broke the natural laws at the beginning of the earth and simply created life with no precedent – that would be essential for science to know. Otherwise the assumption would be that natural laws alone were the cause of all things, and also that the natural laws were always consistent. But if God changed those laws or broke them (through miraculous actions) – then scientists would be totally incorrect to assume that those things never happened. If God created human life through breaking natural laws (a Divine Intervention which created the human soul), then science will continue to be completely wrong when it assumes that human life was created by accident, without any plan or design.

No, it wouldn’t. Science goes on with what it does know, because to introduce an unknown variable like God completely invalidates the scientific method. If God broke his own natural laws, it is irrelevant to scientific inquiry.

So far science is doing okay. And they’ve found the quarries from which the rocks at Stonehenge were hewn.

Why can’t the same thing be said about other Designs found in nature? Why can’t scientists say that it’s “impossible” that DNA, for example, could ever have been caused by random accident? Well, a number of scientists have said that – and one recently became a believer in God based on that very issue (he converted from atheism). He could see that it was impossible to explain the origin of DNA code from random accident. That is science, not philosophy or theology. But science can certainly point to Intelligence behind the order in nature. Einstein saw that order in nature himself. So did the framers of the U.S. constitution. The existence of God as revealed in the Designs of nature are said to be “self-evident”.

It can; plenty of people do say it. Scientists even, some of them. But it is not impossible that DNA could have been formed by chance; it’s a very slight probability, true, but it is not zero – and we’re here. If you want to attribute it to God, feel free. But as I’ve said before, God exists outside the scope of science. Are you deliberately misunderstanding me?

ComradeAndrei:

The religion of the individual is irrelevant-they still existed within a Catholic outlook, even in protestant lands. Even philosophies and sciences that have developed in a European world that are hostile to the Church cannot deny the influence of the Catholic world.

No, they would have existed within a Protestant or Jewish or whatever outlook. The existence of Catholicism does not make everyone take the same worldview, as we can quite easily show by looking at the posts in this thread

One cannot deny the influence of Catholicism on the entirety of Western civilization. But it is not the only thing.

Don’t make me drag Galileo out of the closet again, please…

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Sociology first is not a ‘hard’ physical science but almost more one of the humanities. And Christianity is not the ‘true’ worldview in many opinions – if we are to educate students on one religion’s point of view, should we not include all, no matter how odd or contradictory they may seem? Would it not make more sense to teach what we can prove experimentally?

Many opinions are wrong. As Catholics we are called to be a light in the world. But you cannot prove experimentally anything rergarding Darwin! There wouldn’t be this debatre if you could. You have evidence but not via controlled experiments. The only ones have been laughable computer programmed to succeed simulations.

Nor have I heard sociology speculating much on the origin and nature of ‘love’; that’d be psychology, which is a field filled with black boxes. Much remains to be discovered – but I’d rather teach ‘this is what we know’ rather than potential falsehoods.

Not this is what we think? Every latest theory is presented as the puffed up truth with the solidity of Newton’s gravity (irony intended)

The human capacity for concepts such as love or humor is one of the great wonders of sociology. They’re traceable to old instincts and behaviors – humor, for example, is an interrupted fright response – but humans have done so much more with them than animals have. It’s one of the things which makes us ‘not animals’; perhaps the only thing.

You present your evolutionary origin for emotions as if it were a fact. Is instead of scientists geuss without any hard data

No one could have an idea, no proof whatsoever about the origins of human emotion. People just think it makes sense that humor developed this way and you presented it to me as true. You have no proof could not have–that emotions have an evolutionary genesis. You preach directly from the darwinian gospel:

perhaps the only thing

And so our students are left with the idea that darwin answers all questions of human origin and that man has no need for a soul and that man is essentially a smart animal and can then be treated as such.

The next step is animal husbandry for humans

This is why the gospel of darwin is satanic in its origin. As soon as it leaves hard science it becomes a gospel where the imagination can set up any circumstance where anything can be proved to have an evolutionary cause so long as survival scenarios can be imagined to justify an origin. Essentially anything with a purpose is evolutionary, because the genesis of the purpose gets traced via imagination to survival of the fittest. Evolution becomes the satanic bible for atheists. Ours lifts man toward God; darwinianism strips man down to the dogs.

Dog eats dog replaces the crucifix of Christ.

 

[cheddarsox]

Why can’t the same thing be said about other Designs found in nature? Why can’t scientists say that it’s “impossible” that DNA, for example, could ever have been caused by random accident? Well, a number of scientists have said that – and one recently became a believer in God based on that very issue (he converted from atheism). He could see that it was impossible to explain the origin of DNA code from random accident. That is science, not philosophy or theology. But science can certainly point to Intelligence behind the order in nature. Einstein saw that order in nature himself. So did the framers of the U.S. constitution. The existence of God as revealed in the Designs of nature are said to be “self-evident”.

This is exactly the point I was making! It is clear that these things are neither accidental or random. You keep using those words. I’m a scientist, I’m married to a scientist, I’m friends with scientists, etc. None of these people ever claim that the world we experience is the result of random chance or accident.

When scientists use the word “random” in my experience, it refers to an occurance that takes place among a set of limited possibilities, not entirely without order. It is not entirely “accidental” etc, as many people seem to think.

It is like this…a big ice storm comes, the weight will cause many trees to break, some of the broken trees will fall on vehicles. Your three doors down neighbor has their car damaged this way. This is not an entirely random occurance. The tree did not, with no reason other than the hand of God, break and fall on your three door’s down neighbor’s car. There was a cause/effect. The “random” element is where you neighbor chose to park, plant a tree, the kind of tree they chose to plant, etc. They call the insurance agent and say “There was an accident, a tree limb fell on my car”. They use the word accident, and indeed, it was not something we intentionally planned. The insurance agent knows they will have a busyday with many of these same types of “accidents”, because the situation was ripe for it, and out of all the given scenarios…tree limbs falling on cars was predictably going to happen as a result of that strength of ice storm. In fact, many of these things that we call “accidents” the insurance companies have tables to help them predict just what the likelyhood of them is. There are patterns. It is not as random as it feels. Random that you happened to be one it happens to…but not random or accidental that the occurance would take place.

My point is that the more science studies,the more obvious the order becomes,not less. Indeed, many scientists come to faith or have their faith deepened by their work. And their discoveries act to deepen the faith of others who learn about them. If you know your concept of God is true…then science, if it follows its own dictates, can only ever discover things that further reveal the greatness of the order behind it all.

In my experience I have not heard science make a definitive statement on the subject of a creator. Because that is beyond the realm of science . Science studies what is here and how it works, and natural processes . If your concept of God is supernatural, it is beyond the realm of science to study it, because it cannot be measured, quantified, nor will it fit into natural patterns. However, science has been used to study parts and pieces of faith…shroud of Turin, iccoruptables, etc. So, it does what it can with the materials provided by people of faith.

Personally, I think this…people are afraid “their” God won’t be supported by science. They are afraid the faith they’ve built their lives on will be “proven” false. They don’t want to have to consider that maybe they don’t have all the answers about God wrapped up neat in a box. They don’t want to have to incorporate any new ideas and understandings about how the universe works into their faith, it’s scary and threatening, so they fight it. If we need God to be a certain way for us so badly that we cannot look at the way things are, then indeed other religions and discoveries about the universe may be so threatening that we must resist them and villify them.

If “God” is what is, then there is nothing to fear. No uncovered truth or knowledge can possibly disprove God. However, considering the number of different concepts of God that exist…certainly some peoples understanding of God will be challenged.

 

[cheddarsox]

Scientific discoveries do not equal science as a system. I don’t deny that many great advances were made by non-Christians but there is a reason why science as we know it today grew out of Europe and not China or Arabia. The conception of time, of the order of the universe, the notion of creations relationship with its Creator and other differences in outlooks that non-Catholic cultures have do not foster actual science.

Agreed. Science has certainly been bolstered and taken direction from western culture, anthropocentric universe, manifest destiny, etc.

While I don’t think the scientific process differs…the way in which we use and fund science certainly does.

The “problem” now, is that science, funded and directed by a very western culture mindset…is starting to discover things that “threaten” the western understanding of God. The baby has grown up and is rebelling against its roots.

Do you honestly think that forcing scientists to caveat every finding with …and that’s because the Creator God made it that way will solve this?

The west enjoys the benefits that its science brings it, but scolds science for not conveniently supporting long held cultural beliefs. At some point society will have to decide what it values more, or be willing to alter some of it’s belief systems.

History shows us that civilisations have been toppled by just such dilemmas in the past. That is why people are up in arms over this issue. And a band aid…ie, teaching intelligent design in the public school science class, isn’t going to fix this.

We’ve gone too far to simply stop and say…“and the rest was all done by the Christian God”

The concept of God is and will be challenged.

My concept of the Divine was wildly altered by life experience and the study of science. I am not an atheist, but I was forced to confront my idea of what “God” is. I have a great deal more reverence now than I did before.

cheddar

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Agreed. Science has certainly been bolstered and taken direction from western culture, anthropocentric universe, manifest destiny, etc.

While I don’t think the scientific process differs…the way in which we use and fund science certainly does.

The “problem” now, is that science, funded and directed by a very western culture mindset…is starting to discover things that “threaten” the western understanding of God. The baby has grown up and is rebelling against its roots.

What things?

Do you honestly think that forcing scientists to caveat every finding with …and that’s because the Creator God made it that way will solve this?

No, just stick to hard science and don’t present soft science as factual to the youth to indoctrinate them into scientism

The west enjoys the benefits that its science brings it, but scolds science for not conveniently supporting long held cultural beliefs.

Example?

History shows us that civilisations have been toppled by just such dilemmas in the past. That is why people are up in arms over this issue.

Example?
I thought history showed the further a society leaves moral Truth more apt it is for aggressive self destruction or invasion.
Rome, Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union…

And a band aid…ie, teaching intelligent design in the public school science class, isn’t going to fix this.

Agreed, but neither should children be subjected to darwinian offshoots. I could even make a case for evolution the “hard science” not being taught to children. Give them civics instead please. A little more utility ion the program would be helpful and less scientism, thanks.

The concept of God is and will be challenged.

Particularly when “man is the measure of all things”

Peace

 

[cheddarsox]

What things?

No, just stick to hard science and don’t present soft science as factual to the youth to indoctrinate them into scientism

Example?

Example?
I thought history showed the further a society leaves moral Truth more apt it is for aggressive self destruction or invasion.
Rome, Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union…

Agreed, but neither should children be subjected to darwinian offshoots. I could even make a case for evolution the “hard science” not being taught to children. Give them civics instead please. A little more utility ion the program would be helpful and less scientism, thanks.

Particularly when “man is the measure of all things”

Peace

What things? I’ll let those who feel threatened answer that. Obviously they feel something is threatening their understanding of God and His place in the universe, or why such a bother? Evolution is the first thing that springs to mind, but at one point the heliocentric solar system was an issue as well.

Hard science as opposed to soft science. I AGREE. I am a science educator. I always teach my students the limits of science, how to evaluate information presented to them, and to question, question, question. I teach them how easily statistics can and are used to support whatever personal agenda the presenter may have, and how to evaluate and read statistics, any statistic presented without information as to how/when/where/sample size etc the info was gathered are useless. Scientists also support teaching hard science. We are on the same side of this issue.

My reference to civilisations being toppled by new ideas was referring to cultures being obfiscated when the members of the cultures themselves exchanged “old” ways and beliefs for “new”. This is not, by any means, always a “negative” situation. But cultures have ceased to exist, in a relatively short amount of time due to such factors.

In my experience, most “scientism” isn’t taught in school. It comes from the media, and from cultural norms. In Science class,they actually learn science. On TV,movies etc, they get loose references and pick up assumptions that are faulty or soft science. Advertising and the evening news are rampant with this. Scientists are not in control of how culture uses science. Culture is lazy and uninformed. Wants the tech and medical benefits Science brings, and then villifies science when people use tech poorly, or as an excuse not to educate themselves. Sorry…give blame where it is due. Good, solid info is out there. Educate yourselves and your kids.

If a civics class is what you want, talk to your schools systems, but don’t try to get another area of study to take responsibility for what the culture itself refuses to do for itself.

I worked in the public school system for awhile. People send their kids to school with no breakfast, the kids were up till midnight watching the late show, homework wasn’t done, etc. And then people blame the schools. No teacher can play parent to 20 kids, it’s not what they are paid to do. They provide a service, and the kids who’s families make education a priority, benefit from that service, but the families who don’t…well…if you go to a restaurant but refuse to eat the food, or puke it up in the parking lot…it’s not the restaurant’s fault you are still hungry.

Everything our culture is, is the result of the choices of the people in the culture. We get what we have made priorities out of. We are messed up, no doubt. I’ll not argue that, but to blame it on science, or the public schools, or whatever, and not on ourselves and the priorities we’ve chosen, is a fallacy.

Which brings up back to this…if new, true information about the order of the universe is a priority, and this information is counter to what one believes about “God”. Which side will the individual go with…

Some argue that the information can’t conflict with “God”, but clearly, sometimes it does conflict with certain belief systems…so then what. That is where we are now. Some people’s beliefs about “God” are challenged or threatened by information that seems to be true. How will this challenge be met? Will we alter our faith (yes, that’s the word I mean) in the scientific method, or will we (our culture) alter our faith in a particular concept of “God”.

 

[Mirdath]

Many opinions are wrong. As Catholics we are called to be a light in the world. But you cannot prove experimentally anything rergarding Darwin! There wouldn’t be this debatre if you could. You have evidence but not via controlled experiments. The only ones have been laughable computer programmed to succeed simulations.

Wrong. The process of natural selection has been verified in the field – its results are quite visible through the fossil record, and some species have selected to alter in quite recent history. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are a prime example here. Darwin’s work was in natural selection; evolution is merely an extension of this. It is not an hypothesis, it is a theory which has so far stood up to experimentation and observation.

Not this is what we think? Every latest theory is presented as the puffed up truth with the solidity of Newton’s gravity (irony intended)

No, what is known to be experimentally valid. I’d be fine with current hypotheses being brought up in the instruction of the soft sciences too; but we were discussing hard science, not soft.

You present your evolutionary origin for emotions as if it were a fact. Is instead of scientists geuss without any hard data

No one could have an idea, no proof whatsoever about the origins of human emotion. People just think it makes sense that humor developed this way and you presented it to me as true. You have no proof could not have–that emotions have an evolutionary genesis. You preach directly from the darwinian gospel:

And so our students are left with the idea that darwin answers all questions of human origin and that man has no need for a soul and that man is essentially a smart animal and can then be treated as such.

The next step is animal husbandry for humans

No, I presented it as an example of one of the current lines of inquiry in the soft sciences, crossing over into biology. As emotions have been observed in animals, it’s reasonable to assume or at least to consider that those emotions may have evolved in some way themselves, and taken on a greater depth in humans. Many things are not known about it, but there is some data collected, and it’s worth pursuing.

You have less of a meaningful idea as to the origins of emotions than I do. ‘God put it there’. What does that do for us? What discoveries can we make from there? Why is that interesting in and of itself? What use is that attitude?

We are essentially smart, highly self-aware animals. We are also human beings, and (hopefully) capable of treating each other as such.

This is why the gospel of darwin is satanic in its origin. As soon as it leaves hard science it becomes a gospel where the imagination can set up any circumstance where anything can be proved to have an evolutionary cause so long as survival scenarios can be imagined to justify an origin. Essentially anything with a purpose is evolutionary, because the genesis of the purpose gets traced via imagination to survival of the fittest. Evolution becomes the satanic bible for atheists. Ours lifts man toward God; darwinianism strips man down to the dogs.

Dog eats dog replaces the crucifix of Christ.

Satanic? Please, now you’re just ranting. It was written by a human, is a scientific theory with evidence backing it up… where do you get Satan? And apparently you only do when the theory that ‘good traits are preserved’ goes outside of biology.

Evolution isn’t anything approaching a bible for non-theists; it’s a fairly simple concept that explains how we got here without resorting to a six-thousand-year-old man in the sky. It’s a useful tool in biology, medicine, and many other types of research, nothing more or less. It does not make us less human to know that we share genetic code with apes – indeed, with every mammal, every reptile, every creature on the earth. From a Catholic perspective, one might even say that it unites us more closely with the Creation which is under humanity’s stewardship.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Wrong. The process of natural selection has been verified in the field – its results are quite visible through the fossil record, and some species have selected to alter in quite recent history. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are a prime example here. Darwin’s work was in natural selection; evolution is merely an extension of this. It is not an hypothesis, it is a theory which has so far stood up to experimentation and observation.

It does not have a control nor is it reproducible in the lab.

No, what is known to be experimentally valid. I’d be fine with current hypotheses being brought up in the instruction of the soft sciences too; but we were discussing hard science, not soft.

I believe you would be. I’d rather not be surrounded by a populace ready to think of me as an animal when I am old.

No, I presented it as an example of one of the current lines of inquiry in the soft sciences, crossing over into biology. As emotions have been observed in animals, it’s reasonable to assume or at least to consider that those emotions may have evolved in some way themselves, and taken on a greater depth in humans. Many things are not known about it, but there is some data collected, and it’s worth pursuing.

No, maybe you perceived yourself as presenting your argument that way, but the words you typed presented it as matter of fact factual. This kind of dehumanizing rhetoric presented as fact needs to be kept away from young students studying hard sciences and should never be given the same imprimatur as the hard science of physical evolution.

You have less of a meaningful idea as to the origins of emotions than I do. ‘God put it there’. What does that do for us? What discoveries can we make from there? Why is that interesting in and of itself? What use is that attitude?

Not so. I wasn’t conjecturing to the purposes and origins of emotions, but theology has much to say on it indeed. Things that stun and surprise and move me and I have only glossed the surface. It deepens the meaning of my existence and in so doing also is useful in promoting faith hope and charity in my life and those around me. Prayer, contemplation, and meditation to the sacred heart of God and contemplation of our own heart and the education of the Saints and the gospels make real life changing life giving events all the time, from the morther who agrees to keep her baby, to the alcoholic freed from the bottle by grace to the man who lets go of his anger. No, I do not have much to say about the origins of emotions, but Jesus and His saints do indeed. I thank God for it.

My point here is that the soft science oif evolution you present as matter of fact is absolutely nothing of the sort and actually part of a philosophy of dehumanizing man to an animalistic caricature with absolutely no basis in fact.

If you wish, this is a free country. Ruminate and speculate all you want on the possibility of origins of emotions just do not present your ruminations as science to young students, do not cloak them under the actual hard science done in fossils etcetera in working with the physical science of evolution.

Satanic? Please, now you’re just ranting. It was written by a human, is a scientific theory with evidence backing it up… where do you get Satan? And apparently you only do when the theory that ‘good traits are preserved’ goes outside of biology.

Ranting or desperately crying out? The evils done ***mis-***using the theory of evolution and the evil of eugenics is well documented and among the most horrific of all human history. I personally believe that there is a satanic element. It is so anti-christian in its metaphysics and so gripping to the imaginations of our times, it does seem to me of diabolic origin, this soft science of evolution; I have no direct evidence of this whatsoever. Merely my speculation.

Evolution isn’t anything approaching a bible for non-theists; it’s a fairly simple concept that explains how we got here without resorting to a six-thousand-year-old man in the sky.

How is it you speak for non-theists? And since you ascribe humor and say also it is only that that may separate us from the animals, is not evolution then the be all and end all of your own existence? Which is far more than the bible is for me. After all my faith is in God, not the bible. And he reveals himself in myriad ways, through scripture, Tradition, with the people he created in his image, in the sunset and on and on reflecting a deeper and deeper understanding of Him and ourselves.

But for the non-theist existence all boils down to survival responses, save perhaps humor. Fortunately it is as without foundation as it is without faith, hope or charity.

I wish I had more charity in my tone. My own fears harden my tone, not that there is validity to the idea we are all darwinian constructs, but that the idea is devouring our future in combination with life sciences that can be and are being so terribly misused.

peace

 

[ComradeAndrei]

No, they would have existed within a Protestant or Jewish or whatever outlook. The existence of Catholicism does not make everyone take the same worldview, as we can quite easily show by looking at the posts in this thread

Where did protestantism come out of? I’m talking about something even more basic than a culture of Catholicism or protestantism, the way Catholicism has explained how we look at the world has continued in every facet of western life, the Church’s influence is greater than mere affiliation.

I don’t think I’m doing this idea justice. However, read “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

For example:

To say that the Church played a positive role in the development of science has now become absolutely mainstream, even if this new consensus has not yet managed to trickle down to the general public. In fact, Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly career, has developed a compelling argument that in fact it was important aspects of the Christian worldview that accounted for why it was in the West that science enjoyed the success it did as a self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of science. Jaki extends this thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki explains, science suffered a “stillbirth.” My book gives ample attention to Jaki’s work.

One cannot deny the influence of Catholicism on the entirety of Western civilization. But it is not the only thing.

Don’t make me drag Galileo out of the closet again, please…

Of course, bring up Galileo and invalidate the whole of Catholic thought. Sorry, but I’m not buying that beaten horse argument.

The “problem” now, is that science, funded and directed by a very western culture mindset…is starting to discover things that “threaten” the western understanding of God. The baby has grown up and is rebelling against its roots.

Exactly, those who enthrone science don’t realize that they are spoiled brats who still don’t have all the answers. Science is only a servant, like philosophy it should be a handmaiden of theology.

Do you honestly think that forcing scientists to caveat every finding with …and that’s because the Creator God made it that way will solve this?

There is no need to do that, but they need to quit trying to “disprove” God and sowing the seeds of apostasy.

The west enjoys the benefits that its science brings it, but scolds science for not conveniently supporting long held cultural beliefs. At some point society will have to decide what it values more, or be willing to alter some of it’s belief systems.

Science brings some benefits, but it also brings very negative things into play because they have thrown off the yolk of holy prudence and obedience. Today we can destroy ourselves a thousand times over through nuclear war, biological war, and probably other things. Plus, we are destroying our environment. Add to that the humanism that pervades society and lets us worship ourselves because we have our precious science that heals us of our ills, lets us languish in comfort and so forth.

Science itself is a moral neutral, all things in moderation and under the maternal eye of Holy Church.

History shows us that civilisations have been toppled by just such dilemmas in the past. That is why people are up in arms over this issue. And a band aid…ie, teaching intelligent design in the public school science class, isn’t going to fix this.

States, rulers and civilizations come and go, and the Church will officiate at our empire’s funeral just as it has for the other empires of the last 2000 yrs.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

The concept of God is and will be challenged.

To the detriment of Holy Religion and the salvation of souls.

My concept of the Divine was wildly altered by life experience and the study of science. I am not an atheist, but I was forced to confront my idea of what “God” is. I have a great deal more reverence now than I did before.

That is good, so have I. I had a new found respect for science when I learned from reputable doctors that science “proves” nothing-only heaps up evidence for theories. This in and of itself is a very positive and worthwhile endeavor and as long as science sticks to this, great. It maintains its servant status.

This is the kind of prudence that Pius XII encourages in Humani Generis-

1. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion takes these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

And apparently you only do when the theory that ‘good traits are preserved’ goes outside of biology.

Not so. The theory as an explanation for life is dangerous even in the hard sciences. However, the hard sciences are supposed to have a rigor set up to validate and test theories. That means critical thinking of the theory should be brought to students when they are exposed to it. I am not fine with the theory of evolution even as a hard science.

As a soft science, it attempts to explain the creation of our human condition and there simply is even less means for science to deal in proving or disproving this then there is in science proving what happened millions of years ago in the physical sciences.

But armchair scientists schooled in scientism indoctrinate themselves and students in silly ideas as fact like all emotion come from darwinian forces. The argument is such puffery that trying to refute it is like trying to grab a cloud. There’s nothing there. But everyone who watches Star Trek is ready to jump on board the evolution be all end all train and apply for a big bifurcated veiny brain . I saw a series of interviews of atheists and they mentioned evolution as making God unnecessary. Atheism hooks into this modern fluff of expanded evolution and does not belong in a grade school classroom if there is no place for religion there either as a competitor to scientism and atheism in class.

I fail to see what practical use even the hard science of evolution brings to anything. It has no utility whatsoever. Genetics is its own science and owes nothing to evolutionists and their work. Quite the reverse actually. What benefit to society, what utility to young minds does indoctrinating them to a “God is unnecessary to physical life” theory do? What itch does it scratch?

Can we make sure they can read, write, know the classics, basics in true hard sciences, experimental technique, civics, economics, biology, english, music, arts, health, before filling them with the fluff about how the dinosaurs may have evolved and the trilobytes may have punctuated?

Let’s teach them to critically think and give them the skills to survive. Let’s leave the scientism out of the classroom and build it its own church.

 

[cheddarsox]

To the detriment of Holy Religion and the salvation of souls.

That is good, so have I. I had a new found respect for science when I learned from reputable doctors that science “proves” nothing-only heaps up evidence for theories. This in and of itself is a very positive and worthwhile endeavor and as long as science sticks to this, great. It maintains its servant status.

This is the kind of prudence that Pius XII encourages in Humani Generis-

Yes, science is an excellant servant, but a false and unworthy master. Yet many people, desperate for “salvation” give themselves over to it…without question. I am glad you’ve had the benefit to learn from honest scientists, who are the first to admit the limits of science and the place of science. There is a tendency in humans to grab onto anything they perceive might offer them escape from the trials and challenges of life, rather than seeking those things that offer true enhancement.

cheddar