Many Adams and Eves?

  • Thread starter Thread starter awatkins69
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
Yes. If Ken Ham and Micheal Behe had their way, biology education would be severely curtailed. Thank goodness for groups like the National Center for Science Education (www.ncse.com) and the Texas Freedom Network http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer, and Ohio Citizens for Science http://www.ohioscience.org/.
Click to expand...
Whoa, wait a minute. What incredible power does Michael Behe wield? And I ask again, aside from whining, what will they teach? Nothing?

Ken Ham is a creationist so he is not part of the ID discussion.

And what the heck does severely curtailed mean?

God bless,
Ed
 
StAnastasia said:
Where are the ID and YEC articles in science publication? Do they include Noah’s Flood articles?
Click to expand...
Look back over my last 10,000 posts. They are all there.

Suggestion: turn off the ignore the peer reviewed science Buffalo posts switch.
 
StA - please comment:

A little tidbit from: (note the authors)

What Darwin Got Wrong - Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini

In fact, we both claim to be out-right, card-carrying, signed-up, dyed-in-the-wool, no-holds-barred atheists. We therefore seek thoroughly naturalistic explanations of the facts of evolution, although we expect that they will turn out to be quite complex, as scientific explanations often are.

…We close these prefatory comments with a brief homily: we’ve been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal it is to bring Science into disrepute. Well, we don’t agree. We think the way to discomfort the Forces of Darkness is to follow the arguments wherever they may lead, spreading such light as one can in the course of doing so. What makes the Forces of Darkness dark is that they aren’t willing to do that. What makes Science scientific is that it is.

Hmmmm - hide it? :hmmm: More bad news for StA and the 200000 working biologists.
 
ThomasToo said:
No. I have the scheme that it almost certainly followed. I’ve linked to it above with a video and a chart for the eye and a video, chart and academic paper for the flagellum. I would, as humbly as possible, suggest you watch, view and read them.
Click to expand...
Let’s back up a bit.

I’m not personally interested in irreducible complexity. I chimed in when you claimed that evolution produced the eye, and I asked for proof (as in, a sequence of mutations).

The video by Miller says that since it hasn’t been proven that evolution couldn’t do it, evolution must have done it.

The chart you provided reminds me of the cartoon where a a scientist is explaining a blackboard covered with equations, and he says “and then a miracle happens.” It’s a concept of what happened, not how it happened. Evolution needs to explain HOW it happened, or you’ve got nothing.

Evolution is DEFINED as “random mutations + natural selection.” SHOW ME which random mutations did it. (or if you don’t like the word random in there, just show me which mutations did it.) If you can’t even show which mutations occurred, how can you know that evolution did it, except by faith?

BTW - in a previous post you mentioned that ID is trying to get religion into the science classroom. Here is an excerpt from the Discovery Institute FAQ’s:
Questions about Science Education Policy
Click to expand...
1. Does Discovery Institute favor including the Bible or creationism in science classes or textbooks?

Click here for video
No. Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization, and it does not favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes.
Click to expand...
2. Is Discovery Institute trying to eliminate, reduce or censor the coverage of evolution in textbooks?

Click here for video
No. Far from reducing the coverage of evolution, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. The true censors are those who want to stop any discussion of the scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...
3. Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?
Click to expand...
No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory’s problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents.
Click to expand...
 
StAnastasia said:
In post # 437 you said “If you want to believe that everything came from nothing” – isn’t that creation ex nihilo?
Click to expand...
No - Catholic teaching is that God created everything from nothing. Not changing matter, but creating matter from nothing at all. You of anyone should know the distinction.
 
buffalo said:
No - Catholic teaching is that God created everything from nothing. Not changing matter, but creating matter from nothing at all. You of anyone should know the distinction.
Click to expand...
If you accept that God that created everything from nothing, we’re on the same page.
 
buffalo said:
There are many more small steps needed for each of these 6. Do you agree?
Click to expand...
In the sense that to go from 1 to 2, for example, would need many generations with a deepening of the pit? But these six represent the major stages of the change.
 
buffalo said:
I will rewrite what you posted.

If you want to believe that everything came from nothing and that natural selection and mutations explain the diversity of life you are welcome to do so just don’t try to tell my kids that it’s science.

Added: Discuss it in philosophy class.
Click to expand...
Fair enough but ‘natural selection and mutations explain the diversity of life’ is certainly and unarguably science.

Discuss gods and prayer in a class about religions not science.
 
ThomasToo said:
Fair enough but ‘natural selection and mutations explain the diversity of life’ is certainly and unarguably science.

Discuss gods and prayer in a class about religions not science.
Click to expand...
It is not empirical science.
 
NHInsider said:
. What is NOT OKAY is for people to assert that the Church teaches something it does not, and imply or state outright that unless one accepts a particular position one is not a faithful Catholic, when the Church has not set that requirement.
Click to expand...
This post is where I am trying to catch up.

As you can tell from the stand firm on Scripture thread, I have finally caved and will tackle what is and what is not Catholic teaching. This was a huge issue right after I landed on CAF so hopefully key points are still in my memory bank. I still have the battle scars.🙂

It is my intention to adapt posting according to individual issues. Please note that I totally agree with what you are saying above.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.
 
diggerdomer said:
Catholics are not free to deny dogma. Doctrine is different.
Click to expand...
There have been a multitude of threads/posts trying to explain dogma and doctrine etc. I will try to be more specific. Catholics are not free to deny that Adam and Eve are the two sole first parents of the human species.

I do have answers to your next post 380, but will have to present them later.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.
 
grannymh said:
There have been a multitude of threads/posts trying to explain dogma and doctrine etc. I will try to be more specific. Catholics are not free to deny that Adam and Eve are the two sole first parents of the human species.

I do have answers to your next post 380, but will have to present them later.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is God’s message of faith in the future.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. Catholics, just like all other people, are given free will. We are not held as slaves. Catholics can deny that Adam and Eve are the two sole first parents of the human species, and they do it all the time.

I think you misstated your position.

I think you meant to say that Catholics *shouldn’t *deny that Adam and Eve are the two sole parents of the human species.

It’s a small difference, but enough to form the last straw on the back of my camel.
 
LittleSoldier said:
You are wrong. Catholics, just like all other people, are given free will. We are not held as slaves. Catholics can deny that Adam and Eve are the two sole first parents of the human species, and they do it all the time.

I think you misstated your position.

I think you meant to say that Catholics *shouldn’t *deny that Adam and Eve are the two sole parents of the human species.

It’s a small difference, but enough to form the last straw on the back of my camel.
Click to expand...
I think her point, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that a Catholic trying to act as a Catholic can’t deny that fact, just as a Catholic can’t deny that Jesus is the Son of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top