Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
itinerant1 said:
In post # 954, Ed says, “3. Textbook evolution is entirely atheistic. If it wasn’t, the ACLU would be in court right now to get it kicked out of public schools. So tacking anything ontological or religious onto it does not matter as far as the theory’s supporters are concerned.”
Click to expand...
In the high school textbooks I’ve seen (even in Catholic schools) I would say that math is taught atheistically. Tacking anything ontological or religious onto polynomial instruction does not matter as far as the algebra theory’s supporters are concerned. This style of instruction doesn’t bother me, although I’m happy to see that the high school has crucifixes on the wall in science and math classrooms!

StAnastasia
 
buffalo said:
So it is true what I originally posted:

*In the US we have had Darwin Day. We have the year of Darwin, all advanced by guess who? The NCSE.

and

…*and who is behind the clergy letter project? The NCSE of course.

Agreed?
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by “behind.” There are millions of people behind Evolution Weekend, most prominently its organizers at Butler University. The NCSE supports the CLP, along with countless others. But I wouldn’t say it is “behind” it in any meaningful organizational sense.
 
StAnastasia said:
It depends on what you mean by “behind.” There are millions of people behind Evolution Weekend, most prominently its organizers at Butler University. The NCSE supports the CLP, along with countless others. But I wouldn’t say it is “behind” it in any meaningful organizational sense.
Click to expand...
Here is what Jerry Coyne says about it:

Truckling to the Faithful: A Spoonful of Jesus Helps Darwin Go Down

…Here I argue that the accommodationist position of the National Academy of Sciences, and especially that of the National Center for Science Education, is a self-defeating tactic, compromising the very science they aspire to defend. By seeking union with religious people, and emphasizing that there is no genuine conflict between faith and science, they are making accommodationism not just a tactical position, but a philosophical one. By ignoring the significant dissent in the scientific community about whether religion and science can be reconciled, they imply a unanimity that does not exist. Finally, by consorting with scientists and philosophers who incorporate supernaturalism into their view of evolution, they erode the naturalism that underpins modern evolutionary theory.

and PZ Myers

I entirely reject, as in my judgment quite unnecessary, any subsequent addition ‘of new powers and attributes and forces,’ or of any 'principle of improvement, except in so far as every character which is naturally selected or preserved is in some way an advantage or improvement, otherwise it would not have been selected. If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish. . . I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.
Note that what Darwin is rejecting in that statement is what we now call theistic evolution.
I freely admit to being anti-religious myself, and I would agree that an organization trying to represent all of science and promoting science education does not have to be on the same page with me (and maybe even ought not to be), but the NCSE, NAS, and AAAS have all been erring in the opposite direction, jumping merrily into bed with every evangelical god-botherer who blows them a kiss. If they are going to snub the raging new atheists in the name of religious neutrality, they should be similarly divorcing themselves from Christian apologetics.
 
StAnastasia said:
In the high school textbooks I’ve seen (even in Catholic schools) I would say that math is taught atheistically. Tacking anything ontological or religious onto polynomial instruction does not matter as far as the algebra theory’s supporters are concerned. This style of instruction doesn’t bother me, although I’m happy to see that the high school has crucifixes on the wall in science and math classrooms!

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
I think that is a misleading manner of referring to an academic subject (“a huge mistake”, LOL). Algebra is one of the mathematical sciences. In itself, algebra can have nothing to say about God. The subject of God is outside the province of algebra. That should settle it.

Algebra can be taught in any academic environment, religious school, secular school, terrorist training camp, etc. But to say we have Catholic math, atheistic math, or terror bombing math is a little quirky. The ancient quasi-religious Pythagorean school would disagree with me, here.

I do admit that the academic environment can have an influence on how the subject is taught and how the student learns. Here is one recent example:

This involves a young boy, Johnny, who consistently failed basic math in the public elementary grade school he attended. His grade on any math assignment and his report card was always an “F”. Eventually, the parents, in desperation, pulled their son out of public school and enrolled him in a nearby reputable Catholic school.

Within two weeks Johnny was bringing his completed daily math assignments home, and every one had an “A” grade with a smiley face sticker from the teacher.

Johnny’s parents had no idea why he was almost immediately doing so well in math. The parents sat Johnny down and asked him his reasons for being able to do math so well in just 2 weeks time, when previously he was failing in public school.

Johnny replied, “When I saw that man nailed to plus sign, I knew Catholic school was serious about math.”

😃
 
I think as a sociological and cultural experiment some organization should sponsor Creationist Weekend in response to Evolution Weekend.

Imagine who would attend…Old-Earth Creationists, Young-Earth Creationists, Creation-Science supporters of all stripes, spies from the Darwinian camp, and ID theorists with their supporters.

I think the most uncomfortable situation would be how the ID supporters think they belong at Creationist Weekend, but would have to sit at their own tables because extreme creationists are a little leery of them. Covert Darwinians would be taking notes.
 
itinerant1 said:
I think that is a misleading manner of referring to an academic subject (“a huge mistake”, LOL). Algebra is one of the mathematical sciences. In itself, algebra can have nothing to say about God. The subject of God is outside the province of algebra. That should settle it.D
Click to expand...
Agreed. Similarly the subject of God is outside the province of physics, chemistry, and biology. That should settle it, but it doesn’t for Ed West.

I like that joke!

StAnastasia
 
itinerant1 said:
I think as a sociological and cultural experiment some organization should sponsor Creationist Weekend in response to Evolution Weekend…I think the most uncomfortable situation would be how the ID supporters think they belong at Creationist Weekend, but would have to sit at their own tables because extreme creationists are a little leery of them. Covert Darwinians would be taking notes.
Click to expand...
In the broadest, most theologically responsible sense of the term, every Christian gathering is creationist: we worship God as, inter alia, Creator.
 
StAnastasia said:
In the broadest, most theologically responsible sense of the term, every Christian gathering is creationist: we worship God as, inter alia, Creator.
Click to expand...
True, every orthodox Christian is a Creationist in the sense that they believe God is the creator, ex nihilo, of all that exists. God as Creator needs more attention in the modern world.

Of course, in the previous post I was limiting the use of “creationist” to what I call an ideology, though these ideological creationists are also believers in God as Creator.

The problem is not creation or evolution. The problem pertains to the “ism” thing…fundamentalism, creationism, evolutionism…we argue over the “isms”.
 
edwest2 said:
To reggieM -

I invite you, and everyone else, to read the following brief abstract:

pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8567.abstract

According to the PNAS, we can go one one better than Richard Dawkins’ Blind Watchmaker. We now have the Unconscious Watchmaker.

As Cardinal Schoenborn wrote, the Church is now in the position of having to defend reason itself.
Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed – thanks for posting that. Yes, I agree. We have the claim by evolutionists that human beings are the product of blind, material processes. Evolution replaces the need for an Intelligent Designer. Evolutionary propaganda teaches that random mutations and selection is all that is needed to develop humans. Evolutionary theory is false on scientific grounds - and more importantly, it is in conflict with the truths of the Catholic Faith.

The adaptive features of organisms could now be explained, like the phenomena of the inanimate world, as the result of natural processes, without recourse to an Intelligent Designer. The Copernican and the Darwinian Revolutions may be seen as the two stages of the one Scientific Revolution. They jointly ushered in the beginning of science in the modern sense of the word: explanation through natural laws. Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for the “design” of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes, the gradual accumulation of spontaneously arisen variations (mutations) sorted out by natural selection. Which characteristics will be selected depends on which variations happen to be present at a given time in a given place. This in turn depends on the random process of mutation as well as on the previous history of the organisms. **Mutation and selection have jointly driven the marvelous process that, starting from microscopic organisms, has yielded **orchids, birds, and humans.
 
reggieM said:
Darwinian theory reduces the individual to physical substance alone which gives rise to a mechanistic view of the human being. By reducing the psyche to matter, an ontology of consciousness is displaced. That is, the mind is merely a physical property within a functional system that constitutes the organism. In this sense, mind does not direct consciousness or action, matter does. In short, the human being is reduced to a thing–a reified biological machine engineered by evolution and stimulated by the environment. This approach can potentially lead to a very dehumanizing account of the individual. The intrinsic uniqueness of individuality, personality, and the phenomenology of spiritual experience collapses in reductionism. By making the human being merely an organism, one has stripped the uniquely personal and idiosyncratic dimensions of selfhood down to biology.
— adapted from Jon Mills’ Five Dangers of Materialism
Click to expand...
This is exactly what Darwin does in the Descent of Man.
 
Ed West,

I asked for a link to see the context for your statement: “He went on to say we should be careful about finding Intelligent Design in different places.”

“4. I have read Cardinal Schonborn’s response to critics of his 2005 NYT article. He went on to say we should be careful about finding Intelligent Design in different places. However, he went on to clearly state that there is actual design in nature. So, no wonder ID theorists took his words as support.”

But then you disappeared. 🤷
 
StAnastasia said:
Agreed. Similarly the subject of God is outside the province of physics, chemistry, and biology. That should settle it, but it doesn’t for Ed West.

I like that joke!

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
It is obvious that a certain unprovable idea is acceptable to science.

pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8567.abstract

The Unconscious Watchmaker made you and me? This cannot be demonstrated by science. It is an assumption, and one that cannot be verified or tested.

Science is done by men, and the line between observation and imagination can become blurred. Add to that a personal bias, and imagination creates a version of reality that does not provide and in fact, opposes, the full, complete Catholic Answer.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
It is obvious that a certain unprovable idea is acceptable to science.

pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8567.abstract

The Unconscious Watchmaker made you and me? This cannot be demonstrated by science. It is an assumption, and one that cannot be verified or tested.

Science is done by men, and the line between observation and imagination can become blurred. Add to that a personal bias, and imagination creates a version of reality that does not provide and in fact, opposes, the full, complete Catholic Answer.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed, some of the ID folks in this thread have argued from contradictory positions. You cannot have things both ways. For example, if an evolutionist says such things as an Unconscious Watchmaker created human beings and the sense is that physical processes are irreducibly random, that there is no God or divine providence of creation, then he is making statements that are beyond the scope of the natural sciences.

I have repeatedly said that such statements as these involve a philosophical naturalism. But when I have stated that science should observe a methodological naturalism, I get bombarded in protest with quotes from Einstein, Newton, and maybe Mickey Mouse next time…

This requires a bit more explanation. When I have objected to ID theory as involving philosophical and theological implications, and as such going beyond methodological naturalism I have been told by certain ID supporters on CAF, I don’t remember all the names, that methodological naturalism is a modern invention and science was not always practiced that way.

Further, Behe has found it necessary to redefine science in such a way as to include astrology as a science, false though it may be. Philip Johnson has promoted his own revision of the definition of natural science to include God within the scope of the natural sciences.

If you think natural science should not necessarily observe methodological naturalism, then you can’t blame evolutionists for taking their ideology as science. You can only say, with any kind of consistency, that you object to their version of natural evolutionary science, rather than just their ideology which they have confused for science.

I am not sure if you catch the distinctions, so I will ask the following question:

Do you think scientists, as natural scientists, should observe methodological naturalism?
 
StAnastasia said:
Agreed. Similarly the subject of God is outside the province of physics, chemistry, and biology. That should settle it, but it doesn’t for Ed West.

I like that joke!

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
If you like jokes, well, I must spend my half my days laughing at just about everything. I found a thread on CAF for jokes. Protestant vs. Catholic jokes. I’ll bait you over with this joke I recently posted. It’s appropriate for this particular evolution page since it is page # 66:

666 is the number of the Beast. But did you know that:

660 - Approximate number of the Beast

DCLXVI - Roman numeral of the Beast

666.0000 - Number of the High Precision Beast

0.666 - Number of the Millibeast

/666 - Beast Common Denominator

1010011010 - Binary of the Beast

Beast1-666 - Area code of the Beast

00666 - Postcode of the Beast

1-900-666-0666 - Live Beasts! One-on-one pacts! Call Now! Only $6.66/minute. Over 18 only please.

$665.95 - Retail price of the Beast

$699.25 - Price of the Beast plus sales tax

$769.95 - Price of the Beast with all accessories and replacement soul

$656.66 - Target price of the Beast

Route 666 - Way of the Beast

666F - Oven temperature for roast Beast

666mg - Recommended Minimum Daily Requirement of Beast

Netscape 6.66 - BetaBrowser of the Beast

i66686 - CPU of the Beast

666I - BMW of the Beast

668 - Next-door neighbor of the Beast
 
reggieM said:
Darwinian theory reduces the individual to physical substance alone which gives rise to a mechanistic view of the human being. — adapted from Jon Mills’ Five Dangers of Materialism
Click to expand...
As I read research papers, I find that the reduction of the human being to physical substance alone is the unmentioned foundation for the description and/or the interpretation of research.

In the beginning of “Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins”, Francisco Ayala refers to human evolution. The unsuspecting reader could easily assume that Ayala is referring to humans as we know them. Toward the end, Ayala defines what he means by humans. He begins the section “Theories of Human Origins” with “The origin of anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, occurred around 200,000 years B.P.” He also refers to other theories regarding “the emergence of anatomically modern traits…” In other words, When Ayala refers to the evolution from H. erectus to archaic H. Sapiens, and later to anatomically modern humans, he is referring to physical aspects only and not to the fully complete human person.

This raises the serious question: What is the point of origin of the fully complete human being. Since the data supporting large populations refer to the genomic structure leading to the anatomically modern humans, there is good reason to say that the paper is non-informative about the point of origin of the fully complete human being. Consequently, in my humble opinion, a statement that “no severe population bottleneck has occurred in human evolution” applies only to the human anatomy and not to the true nature of the human species; consequently, two sole parents of the human species is a real possibility.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top