Not too long ago, I had a phone conversation with a good friend who told me he had all of Gould’s books and went on and on about it. Then, a little later, we talked again, and he told me, “You know. The cell is too complex!” He now has his doubts, and believe me, I didn’t encourage him. He came to his own conclusions.I didn’t expect the scales to fall away from your eyes. I was merely providing a source to address the error in your post. Defend your turf. You owe it to yourself. But I think ascribing “storytelling” to the likes of Gould and Eldredge is a little, well, you know…:
Irreducible complexity has been definitively shown to be false, as has been very well pointed out here. Design, by which I assume you mean ID, has been demonstrated to be religion and therefore has no place in a science classroom.Big deal. I think the ideas of both irreducible complexity and design are valid.
Peace,
Ed
Can we agree only testable, repeatable and predictable science should be taught in the science classroom?Irreducible complexity has been definitively shown to be false, as has been very well pointed out here. Design, by which I assume you mean ID, has been demonstrated to be religion and therefore has no place in a science classroom.
You can think whatever you want to but that doesn’t mean what you think should be taught to students in science classrooms.
Yeah, but you don’t even think science exists, so your opinion is less than convincing.“punctuated equillibrium”? Have you analyzed those two words?
I edit and write fiction for a living. If something is punctuated, what does that mean? And how does it attain a state of equillibrium? If evolution is change over time, then there is no equillibrium. I come up with plausible sounding ideas all the time. The imagination is a wonderful thing, but my point is, I don’t find punctuated equillibrium very convincing as an actual explanation.
You need to include falsifiable.Can we agree only testable, repeatable and predictable science should be taught in the science classroom?
Is that last statement something you personally believe or was it made just to defend the party line?Irreducible complexity has been definitively shown to be false, as has been very well pointed out here. Design, by which I assume you mean ID, has been demonstrated to be religion and therefore has no place in a science classroom.
You can think whatever you want to but that doesn’t mean what you think should be taught to students in science classrooms.
add it.You need to include falsifiable.
That’s not science.Is that last statement something you personally believe or was it made just to defend the party line?
"In general, however, ID proponents have tended to assert that some scientifically verifiable fact – for example, this particular molecular biological structure is too complicated to have come about through natural selection alone – directly demonstrates the existence of an intelligent designer.
“These types of arguments have considerable merit, more than Catholics have been inclined to grant, precisely because they focus on quite particular trouble spots for a purely materialist, reductionist account of evolution.”
The author is Benjamin Wiker and is taken from the April 19, 2009 Our Sunday Visitor, a Catholic newspaper.
I also recommend the article titled Finding Design in Nature by Cardinal Schoenborn which appeared in the New York Times. Pope John Paul II also endorsed the idea that there is actual design in nature.
Peace,
Ed
Can we stipulate that God is not dethronable? This might be a little piece of common ground for us all, no matter which side of the argument.Not too long ago, I had a phone conversation with a good friend who told me he had all of Gould’s books and went on and on about it. Then, a little later, we talked again, and he told me, “You know. The cell is too complex!” He now has his doubts, and believe me, I didn’t encourage him. He came to his own conclusions.
I have little belief in the words of men, especially now in the midst of attempts to dethrone God and to enthrone Science.
That’s a good idea. Just don’t include philosophy in the science classroom. Philosophy ought to be in the humanities.add it.
Now will you also agree that students should have mandatory philosophy classes?
I can stipulate to that.Can we stipulate that God is not dethronable? This might be a little piece of common ground for us all, no matter which side of the argument.
Right - outside the science class.That’s a good idea. Just don’t include philosophy in the science classroom. Philosophy ought to be in the humanities.
Ethics, logic, etc would be a very good thing to teach, but it might be a little too much for high school kids.
Sure.Right - outside the science class.
In addition - metaphysics.
Students need to come out of high school understanding the differences between all of these. They need to learn the tools needed to seek the truth.
And that is the core of the problem. The Church not only believes but knows that God can be detected in nature through natural (i.e. non-religious) reason. That is why St. Thomas Aquinas could write his 5 Proofs of God using what he observed in nature and simple, logical proofs.That’s not science.
I am sure that you are well aware that Aquinas’ “proofs” don’t hold up to logical tests. I won’t burden you with URLs to refute those “proofs”.And that is the core of the problem. The Church not only believes but knows that God can be detected in nature through natural (i.e. non-religious) reason. That is why St. Thomas Aquinas could write his 5 Proofs of God using what he observed in nature and simple, logical proofs.
Peace,
Ed
When asked by a young lady what is the biggest problem facing the world today, Pope Benedict replied that too many are acting and living like there is no God.Can we stipulate that God is not dethronable? This might be a little piece of common ground for us all, no matter which side of the argument.
Which god would you like to have included in public schools?When asked by a young lady what is the biggest problem facing the world today, Pope Benedict replied that too many are acting and living like there is no God.
You are missing the ideological dimension here: God cannot return to the public school. The idea of actual design in nature cannot be given any credence because someone, somewhere may connect the idea with God, which the Church does.
Don’t you get it? The ACLU is removing religious monuments from public buildings, turning the local Nativity into another holiday prop down there with plastic Santas and reindeer. Even Richard Dawkins puts up a Christmas Tree which means nothing. Got that?
There are people here who are manning the barricades and simply shouting down any who mention the dreaded initials ID or who promote design in nature, which exists, by the way.
Common ground? There are only two paths: the straignt and narrow, and the wide road to destruction.
Peace,
Ed
The One True God. Who else?Which god would you like to have included in public schools?
As if there is only one so claimed? Why exclude all the others? Maybe you favor a theocracy?The One True God. Who else?
If education is supposed to teach truth then the True God is the one that should be taught.As if there is only one so claimed? Why exclude all the others? Maybe you favor a theocracy?
I mean, public schools, funded by taxes on the people, and you think only your idea of a god should be presented?
Your ideas fit better in parochial schools, but I don’t think they fit in public schools which are funded by people of varying beliefs.