Ind. Senators Vote for Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
AngryAtheist8, that’s a possibility. But why would thousands of Catholic scientists like Fr., George Coyne, Fr. Bill Stoeger, Dr. Ken Miller, and Evangelical scientists like Dr. Francis Collins, collude in such a conspiracy?
Click to expand...
The answer lies partly in your post 134.
 
buffalo said:
That consideration should not be part of the pursuit of truth.
Click to expand...
It should if you care about your children, who would not only be cheated out of learning the truth if ID or YEC were to be taught in school, but who would also be cheated out of funding for all sorts of extracurricular activities (such as orchestra), if their school district were to lose a silly lawsuit.

Schools should teach mandatory philosophy classes, which would include the consideration of comparative origins myths, ranging from Jewish and Christian to Hindu, Buddhist, African, Native American, and Discovery Institute.

StAnastasia
 
RACJ said:
To all: Modification through descent is not controversial when discussing relatively small changes with an already completed organism. What it does not explain is how the eyes, ears, kidneys, brains, hearts, colons, sexual organs, etc, etc came to exist in the first place. Recently I heard Richard Dawkins state if you take humans back millions of generations, what you would see is something akin to a bacteria. YOU all can believe that hysterical balderdash, but count me out. At least THAT conjecture was slightly more plausible than his admission to Ben Stein that he thinks that we may have been colonized by space aliens.
The macro TOE is so shaky that Stephen J Gould had to invent the silly punctuated equilibrium theory. And, lizard-like creatures such as “Ida” are touted as being ancestrally human. Give me, and especially our kids a break! :banghead: Rob
Click to expand...
As pointed out, evolution does explain how organs develop. That’s a banned topic, however, so we won’t go into it here.

What I will say, however, is that the danger of such “macro vs. micro” thinking is that you are putting God in a straight-jacket and you don’t even realize it. What you are essentially saying is that micro-evolution can be explained without God, but macro-evolution can’t, and that’s simply false: neither can be explained without God. This is a philosophic truth, however, and not in the purview of science. ID is poor science and poor philosophy because it concedes too much to the atheistic view, rather than confronting the metaphysical realities that blow that view apart.

With that said, this law is problematic…

buffalo: The objectionable section in the law, for me, is the part where it calls ID a scientific hypothesis and says it can be taught in science classes. It is not a scientific hypothesis, but a philosophical one. There is nothing scientific about ID, except for the portion of it that accepts genetic modification through descent, and that is already taught in basic evolutionary theory.

Peace and God bless!
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Does it occur to you that there might be a good reason for that:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I don’t buy the stat that 90% of scientists are atheistic, but to the extent that many scientists are atheists much of the reason for that lies with the irrational attack on science by fundamentalists and the religious right. Truly orthodox Christianity embraces science, but you would not know that from listening to some prominent voices. As a result, all Christians get painted as ignorant nut-jobs, when most are not.
 
Hokomai said:
Tires are not passed on by descent, and all cars are the result of individual creation, unlike living things.

This is a classic non-scientific statement. No fact we can think of could possibly falsify it. I can make these up too: there is a God, he made everything five minutes ago to look like it was old, including implanting our memories, and fake evidence of past history.

I have no idea. As I said, The Theory(ies) of Evolution do not address the origin of life. There is a lot of science being done in this area, but as yet, I do not think this is known. Science works by discovery, analysis, debate and correction. It does not explain everything (yet!) It is not a matter of belief, like religion.

Pax
Click to expand...
Good point.
The (main) problem with accepting *God did it *as a valid scientific argument is that it can be used to justify absolutely any theory.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Is it any more bizarre than the theory that an all-powerful deity sacrificed himself to appease himself, and since he’s all-knowing it was part of his master plan all long?
Click to expand...
AngyAtheist, the theory of an an all-powerful, omniscient deity sacrificing himself to appease himself is indeed a bizarre theory. However, that is only one model of the Atonement, albeit a very popular one among Protestants.
 
StAnastasia said:
It should if you care about your children, who would not only be cheated out of learning the truth if ID or YEC were to be taught in school, but who would also be cheated out of funding for all sorts of extracurricular activities (such as orchestra), if their school district were to lose a silly lawsuit.

Schools should teach mandatory philosophy classes, which would include the consideration of comparative origins myths, ranging from Jewish and Christian to Hindu, Buddhist, African, Native American, and Discovery Institute.

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Unbelievable. 😦 If I have to pick the truth or sports or orchestra I will always pick the truth. Funding cannot be part of this equation. It amounts to blackmail and money driven indoctrinization.

Now we are getting somewhere. I have often posted about mandatory philosophy class. So teach only empirical science in the science classroom and ID and Evolutionism in philosophy. Can we agree on that?
 
buffalo said:
Unbelievable. 😦 If I have to pick the truth or sports or orchestra I will always pick the truth. Funding cannot be part of this equation. It amounts to blackmail and money driven indoctrinization.

Now we are getting somewhere. I have often posted about mandatory philosophy class. So teach only empirical science in the science classroom and ID and Evolutionism in philosophy. Can we agree on that?
Click to expand...
No…evolution HAS so far fit the model of verifiable theory…ID has no basis other than religous belief.
 
Ghosty said:
As pointed out, evolution does explain how organs develop. That’s a banned topic, however, so we won’t go into it here.

What I will say, however, is that the danger of such “macro vs. micro” thinking is that you are putting God in a straight-jacket and you don’t even realize it. What you are essentially saying is that micro-evolution can be explained without God, but macro-evolution can’t, and that’s simply false: neither can be explained without God. This is a philosophic truth, however, and not in the purview of science. ID is poor science and poor philosophy because it concedes too much to the atheistic view, rather than confronting the metaphysical realities that blow that view apart.

With that said, this law is problematic…

buffalo: The objectionable section in the law, for me, is the part where it calls ID a scientific hypothesis and says it can be taught in science classes. It is not a scientific hypothesis, but a philosophical one. There is nothing scientific about ID, except for the portion of it that accepts genetic modification through descent, and that is already taught in basic evolutionary theory.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
So your claim is that the deliberate search for design is unscientific?
 
StAnastasia said:
Yes, it is empirical (except in the eyes of YECs and IDers).
Click to expand...
It needs to satisfy three conditions:
  1. Observable - it is not
  2. Repeatable - it is not
  3. Predictable - it cannot make predictions since it is an blind unguided process.
 
TMC said:
I don’t buy the stat that 90% of scientists are atheistic, but to the extent that many scientists are atheists much of the reason for that lies with the irrational attack on science by fundamentalists and the religious right. Truly orthodox Christianity embraces science, but you would not know that from listening to some prominent voices. As a result, all Christians get painted as ignorant nut-jobs, when most are not.
Click to expand...
I posted the study a while ago - yes - the majority of biologists are atheists.
 
RACJ said:
Personally, I would rather see a curriculum in which objections to naturalism are presented. Scientists such as Steven C. Meyer and Michael Behe should be able to have their views discussed in the classroom. This would allow the students to think for themselves. A novel concept to the entrenched establishment , I know. 😉 Rob
Click to expand...
And something not supported by most religions.
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. do not encourage followers to think for themselves. Each and every one has a large set of doctrines that every good believer is supposed to accept on faith.
 
buffalo said:
It needs to satisfy three conditions:
  1. Observable - it is not
  2. Repeatable - it is not
  3. Predictable - it cannot make predictions since it is an blind unguided process.
Click to expand...
That theory of which may not speak is indeed all three of the above. That’s why only 0.01 scientists reject it
 
buffalo said:
I posted the study a while ago - yes - the majority of biologists are atheists.
Click to expand...
But not Catholic biologists, of whom I know quite a few, including priests. Their science is not the source of their atheism.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
And something not supported by most religions.
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. do not encourage followers to think for themselves. Each and every one has a large set of doctrines that every good believer is supposed to accept on faith.
Click to expand...
Whoah, hold on here…

Let me lay it out. The experience of mankind has been laid out for us to understand. Catholicism is a proposition. The proposition is based on the accumulated wisdom, experience and Revelation. Every Catholic is free to accept, reject or seek answers. The tenets of the Catholic faith are the closest we will come to truth here on earth. A good student will look to authoritative teaching to help them practice better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top