Intelligent Design

[MichaelTDoyle]

Let’s not call me names. Thanks.

I don’t object to evolution being taught as a science unfortunately it is not being taught as a science. It is being taught as a psuedo philosophy. I would rather not have it taught if it cannot be taught correctly. We do not teach everything in high school. Judgements are made. This is not college we are talking about but impressionable minds.

Man was made clearly distinct from animals but we need the eyes to see it. Redemptive suffering is the great example of this. God does not force us to see Him in His image. We can willfully choose to view ourselves as degraded as to what we really are. Seeing us as merely evolutionized apes removes from men and women their inherent dignity and their calling to be followers of Christ.

So I do not believe evolution should be taught if it cannot be divorced from the contingent philosophy that man is nothing but a product of evolution.

This makes me no more of a book burner than if I objected to pornography being taught to high schoolers. These evolutionary based philosophies are a poison. The evidence is overwhelming: Naziism and abortion both have their ties to the idea of Man as an extrinsic worth based on his survivability. This is not evolution, but unless evolution is taught properly, proponents of such materialistic ideas use evolution as a prooftext for such beliefs.

I appreciate your desire for truth but I would like an equal desire for discernment promulgated in classrooms. One without the other leads down the wide path.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

if his beliefs were a perversion of evolution and that is anough to supress evolutionary theory, they were also perversions of christianity and so the same rules applies.

Not so. Evolution was a jumping off point for his theories (see above), not so Christianity. Christianity (and the Pope and the martyred priests) are and have been the enemy of those who dehumanized Man like Hitler who pushed them into concentration camps.

This doesn’t mean evolution as a physical science is a problem, but the inherent danger must not be ignored on its proven misapplication as a philosophy to wit the continuing deaths around the world, e.g. abortion. What mother would abort if she saw each human life in the image of God, not as a stage of life as a proto-pre developed simian?

 

[2perfection]

MichaelTDoyle:

This doesn’t mean evolution as a physical science is a problem, but the inherent danger must not be ignored on its proven misapplication as a philosophy to wit the continuing deaths around the world, e.g. abortion. What mother would abort if she saw each human life in the image of God, not as a stage of life as a proto-pre developed simian?

Abortion has nothing to do with evolution. non-sequitur.

Anyway, I and others believe ensoulment occurs at the first breath, not before, so abortion isnt murder.

But this is just more evidence of why opposition to evolutionary theory is wrong. You are trying to manipulate people into not having abortions by making sure a theory of origins is not taught.

How could you do evil so good will come? How can you deny people freedom of information? what virtue is there into tricking people into doing ‘good’?

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

2perfection:

Abortion has nothing to do with evolution. non-sequitur.

Anyway, I and others believe ensoulment occurs at the first breath, not before, so abortion isnt murder.

But this is just more evidence of why opposition to evolutionary theory is wrong. You are trying to manipulate people into not having abortions by making sure a theory of origins is not taught.

How could you do evil so good will come? How can you deny people freedom of information? what virtue is there into tricking people into doing ‘good’?

We seem to be missing each others point. I do not oppose the theory, I oppose the missapplication of the theory, the extension of it into other realms, political and philosophy.

I agree in that it is never licit to permit or do evil. Choosing not to teach children theories incorrectly/inappropriately is not evil. I do not think the american education system is up to the task of teaching this theory as a purely scientific theory. The evil is teachers teaching it and letting it bleed into a philosophy that denies man as the image of God.

Finally, abortion is not a non sequitur. Read up on the views of the foundress of planned parenthood.

 

[2perfection]

MichaelTDoyle:

We seem to be missing each others point. I do not oppose the theory, I oppose the missapplication of the theory, the extension of it into other realms, political and philosophy.

Then make sure it is acurately taught. learn about the calumnies and lies, learn about the false logic and oppose it.

MichaelTDoyle:

I agree in that it is never licit to permit or do evil. Choosing not to teach children theories incorrectly/inappropriately is not evil. I do not think the american education system is up to the task of teaching this theory as a purely scientific theory. The evil is teachers teaching it and letting it bleed into a philosophy that denies man as the image of God.

Finally, abortion is not a non sequitur. Read up on the views of the foundress of planned parenthood.

This is just sophistry, because we are human, and imperfect, we cannot hope to teach perfectly. Further, we do not expect children to be able to read the lord of the rings straight away. First we teach them the alphabet.

Its a cunning argument, but nevertheless, an argument for ommission.

 

[The_Barbarian]

First off, evolutionary theory does not, and cannot assert that man is merely a product of evolution. Science can’t even comment on the supernatural, much less make conclusions about it.

Science can only say how man evolved in his body. His soul is forever out of reach of science, which can only investigate the physical universe.

Anyone who supposes science or scientists teach that man is only a product of evolution, does not understand.

It is of these misunderstandings that Christians (and yes some unfortunate Catholics) are seduced into denying God’s creation.

 

[bibleman]

I never said I needed scientific proof. I know science is limited. So, a better way to put it would be to ask for philisophical proof. Of course, I dont need it. I still believe in God. But that doubt is still there. Anyone have any advice on how to get rid of doubts from within? Would prayer be the best way to get rid of the doubt?

 

[Maranatha]

bibleman:

I never said I needed scientific proof. I know science is limited. So, a better way to put it would be to ask for philisophical proof. Of course, I dont need it. I still believe in God. But that doubt is still there. Anyone have any advice on how to get rid of doubts from within? Would prayer be the best way to get rid of the doubt?

Prayer is an excellent way to get rid of your doubts.

Further study of philosophy and history can also help. ever stop searching for the truth.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

2perfection:

Then make sure it is acurately taught. learn about the calumnies and lies, learn about the false logic and oppose it.

You cannot give that surety. College and the hoime may be a more appropriate place.

This is just sophistry, because we are human, and imperfect, we cannot hope to teach perfectly. Further, we do not expect children to be able to read the lord of the rings straight away. First we teach them the alphabet.

Its a cunning argument, but nevertheless, an argument for ommission.

I never said I required perfection, I think the current educational system is not up to the task of teaching the errors inherent in expounding on evolution in political and sociological arenas. Basic coping skillls are lacking from many high school graduates.

Moreover, since many people believe and propose that man is only an animal they now have a secular pulpit, the american classroom, to pound the idea home right inside the science class. In addition any mention of spirituality or religion is strictly verboten in the classroom. We are in danger of raising a whole generation of children in the belief that Man’s value is measured in his utility.

That should give you pause in ramming this theory down the throats of kids inside the american educational system.

Again, I’m not in principal opposed to teaching this theory, but I think people are right to be cautious about it and more righht to insist on defining what is taught most strictly.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

The Barbarian:

First off, evolutionary theory does not, and cannot assert that man is merely a product of evolution. Science can’t even comment on the supernatural, much less make conclusions about it.

I agree. But this theory is misapplied to assert just that (see above)

Science can only say how man evolved in his body. His soul is forever out of reach of science, which can only investigate the physical universe.

I am not convinced that science can say how man definitively evolved since as a Catholic I do not believe in having a dual nature one body and another soul, rather I am body and soul. How can science explain this unity? If it cannot then there is a part of the body eluding the grasp of science.

Anyone who supposes science or scientists teach that man is only a product of evolution, does not understand.

Nevertheless many groups of people throughout history have been classified as animal or chattel based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Man’s dignity.

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

But these arguments against teaching evolution in the classroom don’t help the situation. Evolution is just a scientific theory, teacher bias is something children have to deal with in every class.

To get rid of anything that could be affected by such a bias you would end up baining every class. History can be taught with an anti-religious bias, politics with a pro-choice bias, and astronomy also has evolution (cosmology) and can be taught to show the insignificance of man.

What children have to learn is how to sort out the bias from the facts, how to decide for themselves what is correct using reason. If you shelter them from everything that might challenge them to think they will never gain this ability and when the enter the real world will soon loose all faith they have.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Lady Cygnus:

But these arguments against teaching evolution in the classroom don’t help the situation. Evolution is just a scientific theory, teacher bias is something children have to deal with in every class.

To get rid of anything that could be affected by such a bias you would end up baining every class. History can be taught with an anti-religious bias, politics with a pro-choice bias, and astronomy also has evolution (cosmology) and can be taught to show the insignificance of man.

What children have to learn is how to sort out the bias from the facts, how to decide for themselves what is correct using reason. If you shelter them from everything that might challenge them to think they will never gain this ability and when the enter the real world will soon loose all faith they have.

That is a really valid counterpoint.
I think that evolution’s illicit child theories strike at the heart of faith so the enemies of faith are quick to use it as a polemical axe to attempt to scorn and destroy faith.

While children do need to work through bias, at the same time we shelter them. I am not making a definitive case but I think prudential judgerment is required here.

I hope the arguments pro and con evolution in the class occurring instead of generating stickers for the book set up a rigorous definition of what evo is and what it is not

School now ignores that man even has a spiritual dimension yet allows for the teaching of “man as animal” but not “man as Man”

I think then that teaching of “man as animal” needs to be carefully constructed. Cause once you’re done teaching kids they arer an animal they then go to health class where they’re told they cannot restrain their urges and are given condoms. Then they get MTV from the ipod.

What chance does any spirituality come from such a curriculum?

 

[l_w_smith]

The Holy Bible is neither a science nor history book

Please remember that with God, time does NOT exist. The 7 days of creation were probably given as a point of reference disregarding the billions of years that actually took place. The ‘intelligent’ design began with God those billions of years ago and then ‘evolved’ down into what we see around us today. I have no problem with the evolution ‘theory’.

 

[buffalo]

l w smith:

The Holy Bible is neither a science nor history book

Please remember that with God, time does NOT exist. The 7 days of creation were probably given as a point of reference disregarding the billions of years that actually took place. The ‘intelligent’ design began with God those billions of years ago and then ‘evolved’ down into what we see around us today. I have no problem with the evolution ‘theory’.

The historicity of the Bible has been affirmed. The truth always contains elements of science and history. It is up to us to find the key.

 

[batteddy]

We believe that God’s providence has been sovereign over creation and the process of creating humans…but we believe that divine causality is totally transcendent and on a level above material causality. Perhaps in a way undetectable, because acts of divine providence can appear “random” and as if following certain patterns and processes we call scientific laws.

In other words, we believe the arguments for God’s existence are philosophical. We do not look for quantitative, empirical evidence of God. To do so reduces him to a finite, material thing.

 

[needmorelight]

batteddy:

We believe that God’s providence has been sovereign over creation and the process of creating humans…but we believe that divine causality is totally transcendent and on a level above material causality. Perhaps in a way undetectable, because acts of divine providence can appear “random” and as if following certain patterns and processes we call scientific laws.

In other words, we believe the arguments for God’s existence are philosophical. We do not look for quantitative, empirical evidence of God. To do so reduces him to a finite, material thing.

Excellent points here. Science cannot prove anything. It can only disprove, which is why science can only investigate a falsifiable hypothesis. Hypotheses such as “there is a God” or “This species looks and behaves like this because it was designed by God” are not falsifiable since it involves the supernatural (i.e., God, or the will of God), which cannot be observed empirically and objectively. This is the same reason why science can never disprove that the bread and the wine do change into the body and blood of Christ, since Catholic doctrine teaches that the accidents of the bread and wine are still present after consecration. This is what scientists call the “limitations of science” and it is not a secret, every introductory science class teaches or should teach this. Science is “agnostic” by its very nature and cannot say that there is or there is no God.

Think about the implications of having a falsifiable hypothesis on the existence of God and insisting that He be included in the science classroom. Are we prepared to reject God once science has disproven such a hypothesis? That is how science works–any scientific hypothesis or theory (these two are not the same, by the way) that has been overwhelmingly invalidated by empirical data is forever rejected.

For those who do not have a clear understanding about the theory of evolution by natural selection, I recommend reading Kenneth Miller’s book Finding Darwin’s God (the author is a prominent biologist and a practicing Catholic). It also gives a good discussion of the flaws of Intelligent Design and why it is not considered science by the scientific community.