M
mike182d
Guest
Yes, I agree. Evolution taught as a scientific theory is bizarre.
- Status
T
Thekla
Guest
You’re saying that you think evolution is a religious belief? I’ve never heard that one before.
Evolution is a scientific theory; not just a theory, but a scientific theory. It remains puzzling to me that the Church has never taught that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive, yet I find Catholics demanding that creationism be taught as science. I expect to hear that argument from non-Catholics, but not from Catholics.
L
Lizzie
Guest
Is it not true that for approximately one hundred years evolutionists taught the concept of primordial soup? Wasn’t Carl Sagan a proponent off such?
Does Evolution now have any opinions or proofs about the beginnings of life?
D
David_Paul
Guest
Huh? From about 300 BC onward, no educated person in the west thought the earth was flat. All the Doctors of the Church knew it was round.
The Flat Earth Myth was propagated and spread by my people–Protestants–in the early 19th century. The President of Cornell University was one of those who propagated the fraud. It was, of course, created to denigrate medieval Catholicism.
J
jman507
Guest
If the same culture your teaching taught 1+1=3, then it might be important to bring up that up. I do not know the reasons behind why 1+1=3 for that culture, but there would probably be some extra-mathamatical reasons. So it would be important that the teacher says 1+1=2 in mathamitics, and the culture says 1+1=3, and explain the differences. That seems a much better alternative to avoid mentioning it. Were you might end up leaving the students confused as to how at times 1+1=2 and other times 1+1=3. It would be good that the students understand the proper time to use a mathmatical idea vurses a cultural idea.
When it comes to ID, many will say that it is not science. I for the sake of this arguement will go right along with it, it seems to go into the area of philosphy. Now teaching ID is not really teaching science. If your just teaching students to be technections I guess that might be fine, but I think you should be teaching a student how to be citizens in a society. That should include students knowing how science relates to life. It should be understood where science begins and ends.
There really seems to be a problem, if science teachers are saying we don’t want to teach this because this is not science and because we shouldn’t be dictated by people making a politcal statement. But if people are making a political statement and are wrong, shouldn’t they be corrected? Especially the bigger the outcry, the bigger the politcal statement, the more important it is to give the correction.
The only thing I see that the science teachers are doing is not completely fulfilling their obligation. People are confused as to what science is and is not. We need our young to-be scientist to understant these things. Do you really want a scientist who doesn’t understand a philosphy of science to be making ethical decisions? Do you want an misinformed public, passivily supporting or rejecting what science is doing?
If there is a heresy in the church, the church should do its best to flat out say what parts are wrong and what parts of it are right. If the church just avoids it, hoping its going to go away, it’ll probably just grow bigger. If it does not give a proper explaination, some will agree with it. If it says its just completely wrong, some will look and see it has some good parts, and will look with suspicion at the church.
I’m not going to say one needs to spend a whole lot of time on it. Just go through some of the basics for a small part of a class. Use that time to explain which parts cannot be supported by science.
It will be a better example teaching about the question what is science than what you can give in the first week. This is something people seem to care about a little more.
T
Thekla
Guest
Okay, I got carried away. Not the flat earth but the fact that the earth moves. I’d put your date a little later, but the part about Protestanism is totally correct. As for Galileo…
"In the formal sentence of June 1633, the Inquisition noted that the *Dialogue *explicitly violated the 1616 injunction since Galileo, in this book, “defended the said opinion [of the Earth’s motion and the Sun’s stability] already condemned and so declared to your face, although in the said book you try by means of various subterfuges to give the impression of leaving it undecided and labeled as probable; this is still a very serious error errore gravissimo] since there is no way an opinion declared and defined contrary to divine Scripture may be probable”
N
norbert
Guest
Scientists (not just “evolutionists,” whatever that means) have long considered that primitive forms of life arose from the organic soup of early Earth. How it exactly happened isn’t known, and by its nature it’s a very difficult question to conclusively answer, but there are several ideas.
S
StCsDavid
Guest
I see your point; however, isn’t science a knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method? (okay, I borrowed that definition from Webster’s dictionary online
) My point is science is a study of that which can be observed and measured. The actual work of seeing and measuring is a very important skill set for a student to learn. I don’t think ID falls into this area…and I have to be candid…I’m not so sure evolution makes the cut either. I kind of see evolution as making it into the system and the ID folks trying to be its antithesis. Two wrongs (meaning being taught in the wrong class) don’t make a right.I would rather the science teacher say, “Scientifically, we don’t know how this all got started. Here’s the physical things we know about the Earth. There are all kinds of debatable theories which you may want to study when you get into college.” And leave it up the parents and Church to guide the students from there.
J
jman507
Guest
I see that point. Actually if you put it that why I don’t fall far from you, and I could go along with that. I just think the teacher should briefely explain a basic outline of those debateably theories, so people have some idea what the arguement is. Since that is not ‘science’ a hs science class should put too much time into it. I don’t think that explaining it that much would be wrong, because it does have something to do with science. But it has too much to do with philosphy to spend time studying it in-depth. Plus there isn’t a differnt class to put it in, in high school, that would be required.I see your point; however, isn’t science a knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method? (okay, I borrowed that definition from Webster’s dictionary online
I would rather the science teacher say, “Scientifically, we don’t know how this all got started. Here’s the physical things we know about the Earth. There are all kinds of debatable theories which you may want to study when you get into college.” And leave it up the parents and Church to guide the students from there.
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
Why do we have to teach either? I mean how about teaching programming, verifiable history, typing, math, current biology CPR, uhhh…reading comprehension, logic…
Maybe there should be a broader discussion of what school is for, what its aims are and what is the best way to achieve realistic and verifiable results.
Maybe there should be a broader discussion of what school is for, what its aims are and what is the best way to achieve realistic and verifiable results.
E
ega
Guest
The geolocal column isnt divided into 6, more like 10ish…It is almost funny that the agnostic Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard substituted Punctuated Equilibrium for classical Darwinism. Despite Gould’s denial, his PE(punk eek)theory is consistent with the biblical creation story of Genesis 1. God’s six days correspond to six geological events.
E
ega
Guest
They are. The IDists are winning the publicity war, but not the arguments with scientists.
They have no evidence.
E
ega
Guest
Eviolution does cut the mustard, the case of african elephants is a case in point. 100 years ago the vast majority had tusks, 5% didnt. As predation became an ever expending problem (poachers, not lions) the incidence of tusklessness increased. That is, the a characteristic gained prominence.
Now, looking at fossils we would say these are two different species, even if they could breed. The validity of that argument must be placed in the context of lions and tigers, clearly different species but able to produce hybrids (ligers a tigons) the females of which are not infertile.
BTW, look up ligers, they are amazing, and friendly!!
Single celled algae repeatedly become multicelled organisms under the impact of predation. Not many cells congregating, but a mother cells sharing a body with daughter cells.
Evolution is testable, repeatable, and and a proven purpose.
What is at issue are the mechanisms. So far we know of many, hybridisation, genetic drift, natural selection, punctuated equilibrium. There is no reason to expect one mechanism.
Finally the process of evolution is not random. The slection process is a filter that limits variation. It is non-random.
J
jman507
Guest
That is part the problem, because they won’t address the problem. They have the answers but they won’t teach it to the public. It would be like the Church plauged with a heresy that they have a good answer to, but not refuting it, because of hard-headness not wanting to give more credibility to the heresy, while it’s stock keeps going up and up.
M
mlchance
Guest
http://home.houston.rr.com/mchance3/rolleyes.gif
How about a refresher course on the “Galileo controversy,” which had nothing to do with whether the Earth was flat?
– Mark L. Chance.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Sorry but evolution only shows change. It does not show creation. Creation of life if by chance or by design is still only theory. Maybe if there is “time travel” prior to the end of this world then you can prove creation of life one way or another. In my case I take it on faith that GOD Created life and I really don’t care by what method.
B
buffalo
Guest
Try searching the threads for evolution or intelligent design, and you will be amazed…
Redefining science to include evolution and exclude ID and then riducule it is a strategy designed to kill debate.
B
buffalo
Guest
Eventually one has to get to the real question - why.
S
st.jerome
Guest
That’s a good point. If intelligence of some sort is the only requirement, this entity could be the universe itself, thus making it a pantheistic idea.
B
buffalo
Guest
Exactly - it could very well end up being at odds with Catholicism.
However, it would be easier to extrapolate God than atheistic evolution.
- Status