Protecting your H.S., College children from scientific gibberish

[revert_jen]

I find this thread to be somewhat strange: protecting children from knowledge?

Nope. Protecting children from being taken in by lies. False (ideology-driven) science is not knowledge, and it does not adhere to scientific methodology.

We need to teach children how to recognize when something has been scientifically proven and when it has not. We need to teach them not to be taken in by the atmosphere of scientism and to respect science for what it can truly do, without worshipping it.

Many people are led astray in college. Many people then return to God. But not all. And even the ones who return may never understand what was wrong with what they were taught that led them astray. Parents have a responsibility, if they are capable, to teach their children the differece between science and scientism, and how to appreciate the former without falling victim to the latter.

–Jen

 

[edwest2]

From what I understand, Catholics do believe in Allah, as Allah is seen as the same god that they worship. It is the teachings of that god that are in dispute, not its existence.

That is not true. While Islam is one of the Abrahamic religions, Catholics and Christians in general, never call God Allah. A quick study of Islam will quickly show that it is not a part of Christian teaching.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Razanir]

Original Sin is not genetic, it is a Spiritual Disorder.

I don’t think anyone actually believes there is an Original Sin gene. Our point in saying it’s genetic is that it was passed down to us from Adam and Eve. It’s why the Catholic Church currently promotes monogenism– because if there were multiple first sets of parents, there could be people not at all descended from Adam and Eve.

Then we have The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. From the book’s description on amazon: “A preeminent scientist – and the world’s most prominent atheist – asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.”

Interestingly enough, Dawkins is actually agnostic

Your point, it seems, is that there is nothing to fear from public school. After more than 25 years as a teacher and principal, I can tell you that public schools are the first line of communist ideology and indoctrination perpetrated on innocent children. Of course by the time they’re in high school, they are fully brainwashed and see nothing odd or unusual about the marxist-atheistic-communistic spin on things.

I do not think there is nothing to fear, but I do think that one cannot feasibly in this day and age shelter a child from everything that goes against Catholicism. I also think that some knowledge of the opposing side can be a good thing. Think of all the people who only hate a misunderstading of Catholic teaching.

Also, out of question and without going too far into the topic as to break forum rules, where do you two stand on YEC v theistic evolution?

 

[edwest2]

I find this thread to be somewhat strange: protecting children from knowledge?

The fact of the matter is, science can only give us more insight into God. Creation, just as much as the Bible, is the way God speaks to us. It is a form of revelation.

Why should anyone be concerned that their “child” needs “protection” from “scientific gibberish” any more than they may need protection from “Biblical gibberish,” “theological gibberish,” “philosophical gibberish,” and so on?

The fact is, any misunderstanding of “truth” is going to lead to error. Therefore, I think (though I could be wrong) that the OP belies a certain anti-scientific stance derived from an understandable (but unnecessary) insecurity.

Furthermore, anyone who enters into higher education should know that he or she is going to be exposed to new ideas. That’s the point. Even in learning falsehoods we come to understand and appreciate truth. Intellectual inquiry enriches the mind. Now, of course a danger that one may be led astray. But I remind myself of the story told by Anthony DeMello: you are connected by a string to God. And each time you sin or err, the string is cut. But each time you return to God, the string is tied back together, and you come closer to God.

That’s the way it works with intellectual advancement: we come to an idea, we entertain it. Maybe we even accept it. But ultimately, we may realize that it is error, and so we drop it and move away.

Therefore, it is better to have approach scientific discoveries with an open mind, not with suspicion. We can look at science with curiosity, excitement, and wonder!

I can no longer look at science with excitement. The OP is rightly concerned, not about knowledge, but protecting college kids from scientific garbage.

Science cannot study God and does its best today, to convince us to dismiss God. To turn our concept of God into neurologically meaningless nonsense. Scientist: “God? Nothing to see here. Move along.”

I understand the scientific method. And I am suspicious of most of it since a good portion is philosophical garbage labeled science.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047143

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I don’t think anyone actually believes there is an Original Sin gene. Our point in saying it’s genetic is that it was passed down to us from Adam and Eve. It’s why the Catholic Church currently promotes monogenism– because if there were multiple first sets of parents, there could be people not at all descended from Adam and Eve.

Interestingly enough, Dawkins is actually agnostic

I do not think there is nothing to fear, but I do think that one cannot feasibly in this day and age shelter a child from everything that goes against Catholicism. I also think that some knowledge of the opposing side can be a good thing. Think of all the people who only hate a misunderstading of Catholic teaching.

Also, out of question and without going too far into the topic as to break forum rules, where do you two stand on YEC v theistic evolution?

Mr. Dawkins is not agnostic. Just visit his web site.

Sin is like the Soul, it cannot be studied by science.

You have a great imagination but the fact is that there are plenty of parents homeschooling their kids, not watching TV and strictly enforcing proper, Christian forms of conduct. Sure, their kids will know how to operate all the latest devices but their lives will be centered on God, not the world. Their parents know for a fact that the current school system is no longer a good teacher.

So, without all the mental garbage in their heads, their kids can go into the world without the confusion that reigns right now in the world.

No, they will not be perfect and still be sinners, but they will have a proper grounding in reality as opposed to the dysfunctional version being currently marketed.

Peace,
Ed

 

[seakelp]

Nope. Protecting children from being taken in by lies. False (ideology-driven) science is not knowledge, and it does not adhere to scientific methodology.

We need to teach children how to recognize when something has been scientifically proven and when it has not. We need to teach them not to be taken in by the atmosphere of scientism and to respect science for what it can truly do, without worshipping it.

…and what better place to teach someone what is science and what is not than in a science classroom?

Many people are led astray in college. Many people then return to God. But not all. And even the ones who return may never understand what was wrong with what they were taught that led them astray. Parents have a responsibility, if they are capable, to teach their children the differece between science and scientism, and how to appreciate the former without falling victim to the latter.

–Jen

Of course. But using labels like “scientific” v. “scientism” isn’t going to help unless you have a proper understanding of what science is. Furthermore, that’s a philosophical distinction, not a scientific one.

Sounds like you’re more worried about what they’ll learn in the philosophy lecture hall than in the scientific laboratory…

 

[seakelp]

I can no longer look at science with excitement. The OP is rightly concerned, not about knowledge, but protecting college kids from scientific garbage.

Science cannot study God

and does its best today, to convince us to dismiss God. To turn our concept of God into neurologically meaningless nonsense. Scientist: “God? Nothing to see here. Move along.”

Incorrect.

Science does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of non-material ideas. It looks like you’re confusing “science” and “philosophy.” Yes, some scientists are wrong insofar as they assume science can do away with God. But that’s not a scientific proposition, that’s a philosophical one.

So your hostility to science is quite misplaced.

I understand the scientific method.

Good.

And I am suspicious of most of it since a good portion is philosophical garbage labeled science.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047143

Of course, people will always have critiques of modern science, and the philosophical underpinnings that support its methodology. We can look to the Romantic Scientists and even Medieval Christians for other ways of understanding the natural world.

But there is a decidedly anti-science, anti-knowledge attitude I’m sensing from you (though I may be mistaken). Can you provide some examples of what you mean by “scientific garbage?”

 

[meltzerboy]

It is no secret that many young students ( and the innocent in the general public ) are loosing their faith because of indoctrination by intellectual " superiors " at High School, College, or University. Your child’s faith is being destroyed by the Pied Pipers of a pseudo science by which they try to convince your child God does not exist and all religion is worse than foolishness.

If you doubt my word just start reading almost any thread in the Philosophy forum and you will see the kind of nonsense that is leading your child and perhaps yourself astray.

How do you protect your child, how do you protect yourself against this aggresive lie ?

I would suggest you take a look at the Magis Center of Reason and Faith and see some of the resources that can help. magisreasonfaith.org/free_dvd.html

While it is true that this pseudo scinece/philosophy is pure nonsense, it cannot be ignored because the practioners are extremely clever. They deserve to be hooted out of town. And in a sane, rational society they would be. But today we no longer live in a sane, rational society. So prepare yourself. It is not necessary that you argue with these people because they are the most expert Sophists that ever existed. But it is necessary to understand the foolishness upon which they stand. That way you and your children can just ignore them and quitely lead a life of reason and faith.

Linus2nd

Who are these academics you seem to be so afraid of? In all my years of teaching, I’ve never run into them.

 

[edwest2]

edwest2;10508497:

I can no longer look at science with excitement. The OP is rightly concerned, not about knowledge, but protecting college kids from scientific garbage.

Incorrect.

Science does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of non-material ideas. It looks like you’re confusing “science” and “philosophy.” Yes, some scientists are wrong insofar as they assume science can do away with God. But that’s not a scientific proposition, that’s a philosophical one.

So your hostility to science is quite misplaced.

Good.

Of course, people will always have critiques of modern science, and the philosophical underpinnings that support its methodology. We can look to the Romantic Scientists and even Medieval Christians for other ways of understanding the natural world.

But there is a decidedly anti-science, anti-knowledge attitude I’m sensing from you (though I may be mistaken). Can you provide some examples of what you mean by “scientific garbage?”

Interesting how you can sense hostility, anti-science and anti-knowledge from me. Just go back to the first post in this thread. The OP is right.

I’ll provide an example which clearly shows mixing pure philosophy and biased anti-God conclusions into a science textbook.

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)"

And the average student will think what? That all that isn’t a fact? It’s in a textbook.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Razanir]

Science cannot study God and does its best today, to convince us to dismiss God. To turn our concept of God into neurologically meaningless nonsense. Scientist: “God? Nothing to see here. Move along.”

Science, or at least proper science, cannot dismiss God. Existence is unfalsifiable. Take for instance the claim “All swans are white.” If even one white swan is found, this is made false.

I understand the scientific method. And I am suspicious of most of it since a good portion is philosophical garbage labeled science.

The scientific method is just a wise way of approaching questions. State a question, hypothesize, test it, and analyze the results. What exactly is the flaw in this?

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)"

Do you have an actual copy of it? I’ve read many textbooks throughout high school and what I’ve had of college. Never have I seen emphases such as those. Or any books that promote atheism like that. All the textbooks I’ve seen seemed fairly neutral.

I still want to know. What do you think of evolution, the Big Bang, and while I’m at it, the Round Earth Model? The first two go against a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 (which you seem to support) and the last one was tested with the scientific method

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

That is not true. While Islam is one of the Abrahamic religions, Catholics and Christians in general, never call God Allah. A quick study of Islam will quickly show that it is not a part of Christian teaching.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, why are you railing against Allah if he does not exist?

 

[crazzeto]

Ed, why are you railing against Allah if he does not exist?

As I understand, “Allah” is Arabic for “God” and Arabic Christians have fought for the right to use the word.

 

[Eleve]

You understand correctly.

 

[seakelp]

seakelp;10508705:

Interesting how you can sense hostility, anti-science and anti-knowledge from me. Just go back to the first post in this thread. The OP is right.

I’ll provide an example which clearly shows mixing pure philosophy and biased anti-God conclusions into a science textbook.

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism

, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)"

And the average student will think what? That all that isn’t a fact? It’s in a textbook.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, I think Razanir essentially responded as I was planning to. For the sake of brevity, I’ll just wait to see your response to his post.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

We need to teach children how to recognize when something has been scientifically proven and when it has not

Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt proof outside the domain of science?

 

[crazzeto]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt proof outside the domain of science?

There is such thing as a scientific proof

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

As I understand, “Allah” is Arabic for “God” and Arabic Christians have fought for the right to use the word.

Yeah, again, quite true. But Ed has stated that he does not think Allah exists. So I’m wondering why he is “railing” against it.

 

[Stillness]

That is not true. While Islam is one of the Abrahamic religions, Catholics and Christians in general, never call God Allah. A quick study of Islam will quickly show that it is not a part of Christian teaching.

Peace,
Ed

There is a difference between the ancient concept of “Allah” which was a pagan god who was the head of the Arabic pantheon, and the modern concept of “Allah” which was a version of Yahweh adapted and molded to fit with Muhammad’s religion.

 

[revert_jen]

…and what better place to teach someone what is science and what is not than in a science classroom?

I literally laughed out loud when I read this. It would be fine to learn it there, except it would have to be some sort of miracle, because most people aren’t actually teaching it. If parents are capable, they should not trust HS science teachers to teach these things to their own children, but teach it themselves.

Of course. But using labels like “scientific” v. “scientism” isn’t going to help unless you have a proper understanding of what science is. Furthermore, that’s a philosophical distinction, not a scientific one.

Sounds like you’re more worried about what they’ll learn in the philosophy lecture hall than in the scientific laboratory…

No, I’m worried that their science classrooms will be full of mistaken philosophy instead of real science. And that if children are not properly trained, they won’t know the difference. That was the point I was making.

–Jen

 

[Ontheway]

Going back to the University environment for a moment. How do people view the role of the Newman Center on campus? Anyone have experience with them?