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

[Razanir]

1. I was only interested to know how you feel about science. Your comments all seem so anti-science, that it seemed like an interesting question to know the answer to.
2. So what about the science book? I stand by my skepticism because every textbook I’ve ever used has been written neutrally and has used emphasis only for new vocab

 

[CatholicGeek1]

While I have not had a chance to read through all of the posts on this topic yet, and therefore, apologize if I state something that has already been discussed, I did want to make one point.

I believe that it is highly dangerous to label all science as bad, wrong, evil, etc. Science has a very important part in our lives and in the world and in our ability to understand them.

God gave us intelligence and reason and I believe that He expects us to use them. There are many things that science can tell us. As long as the science is not trying to disprove God or the things that we know through faith of God, it is highly beneficial.

Two quick examples to illustrate my point. If we look at the Big Bang as the way the universe was created and use it to attempt to prove that the universe was created through chance, this is a problem. If however, the Big Bang is looked at as a theory that shows how God may have brought about the creation of the universe, there is no problem and is in fact beneficial as it helps us to explain and understand better the creation that has been given to us by God. In fact, one of the people that helped develop the Big Bang theory was in fact a Catholic.

Second example, evolution. Again, if we look at evolution as an explanation of how life came about apart from God, that is a problem. If however, we look at evolution as a means by which God directed and caused the development of the life that He created, then this again is informational and not a problem. Blessed Pope John Paul The Great was a believer in theistic evolution.

Just something to think about.

 

[presidentjlh]

When considering the matter of science and religion, it is important to recognize a few things.

First, science and religion have quite different goals in mind. The concern for the scientist is to uncover Truth about that which is possible to detect by human means. I refer to it as “Truth” and not “facts” or “theories” for while no scientific study has ever been a Truth, that is nonetheless the goal. The goal of religion, specifically, the Catholic faith, is to recognize the reality of God and Christ, promulgate their teachings, and lead the way to salvation for the souls of humanity.

One is concerned with empirical findings. The other is concerned with moral truths.

Contrary to somewhat popular belief, science and religion do not conflict. There is nothing about the existence of God that would disprove anything we know about science, nor is there any way one could scientifically disprove God. As such, science is but a neutral matter, one that merely discovers cold, hard facts.

The issue at hand is not science. It is how those who study in science see the scientific method as a means of disproving the existence of God, which is ironic, since it was a Catholic priest that came up with the scientific method. They feel that if it cannot be tested, then it is not fact.

Another problem comes from the argument that believing in God is illogical. They will say, “Absence of evidence against God is not proof God exists.” That statement is true, it is not proof. The problem at hand is they then fallaciously take that to mean, “Absence of evidence for God is proof God does not exist.” This is just as illogical. It denies the possibility of God even though nothing was given to prove or disprove their claims.

As such, contrary to what some may think, the idea of the existence of God becomes a matter of choice. You may choose to believe in it or not believe in it.

From a purely mathematical approach, with regards to probability, it is not true, as some of them will say, that there probably is no God. If there is greater than a 50% chance that God does not exist, that would mean that there would have to be some reason to account for that likelihood he does not exist beyond 50%. There would need to be evidence.

As it stands, the scientist has three choices. Believe in God, do not believe in God, or be agnostic. These stances are all compatible with someone who desires to study science. Nothing they study will have an impact on the argument of the existence or non-existence of God.

The problem, as it stands, is that many feel inclined that they should take the atheistic route. They fall victim to that fallacy that while it is untrue that absence of evidence against God is proof of God, it is true that absence of evidence for God is proof against God. They do not take the statement to its logical conclusion.

Science and faith do not contradict. If I hold out hope that something good will happen to me, by the views of some scientists, is that not illogical of me? What proof do I have that it will happen? On what basis do I hold out hope?

But I doubt you’ll hear any scientist scoff at someone that holds out hope that they will, say, get a job they interviewed for, even though they have no way to tell if they will or will not get said job, and all the other applicants are equally qualified. But it stands to reason then that a belief in God, a hope and faith in God, is not all that different really from a reasoning perspective.

I have accepted a belief in God. I have hope and faith that He exists, and His promises are true. I cannot prove His existence by scientific means, I rely solely on my own thoughts and feelings in regards to it.

There is nothing that is anti-science about such a statement.

 

[Razanir]

If we look at the Big Bang as the way the universe was created and use it to attempt to prove that the universe was created through chance, this is a problem. If however, the Big Bang is looked at as a theory that shows how God may have brought about the creation of the universe, there is no problem and is in fact beneficial as it helps us to explain and understand better the creation that has been given to us by God. In fact, one of the people that helped develop the Big Bang theory was in fact a Catholic.

1. Msgr. Georges Lemaître. Creator of the Big Bang theory. Einstein and other scientists actually didn’t believe it at first and named it as such in mockery.
2. IMO, the Big Bang is actually evidence for God. If time, space and matter were all created at the Big Bang, how could it have a temporal, material or spatial cause?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

While I have not had a chance to read through all of the posts on this topic yet, and therefore, apologize if I state something that has already been discussed, I did want to make one point.

I believe that it is highly dangerous to label all science as bad, wrong, evil, etc. Science has a very important part in our lives and in the world and in our ability to understand them.

God gave us intelligence and reason and I believe that He expects us to use them. There are many things that science can tell us. As long as the science is not trying to disprove God or the things that we know through faith of God, it is highly beneficial.

Two quick examples to illustrate my point. If we look at the Big Bang as the way the universe was created and use it to attempt to prove that the universe was created through chance, this is a problem. If however, the Big Bang is looked at as a theory that shows how God may have brought about the creation of the universe, there is no problem and is in fact beneficial as it helps us to explain and understand better the creation that has been given to us by God. In fact, one of the people that helped develop the Big Bang theory was in fact a Catholic.

Second example, evolution. Again, if we look at evolution as an explanation of how life came about apart from God, that is a problem. If however, we look at evolution as a means by which God directed and caused the development of the life that He created, then this again is informational and not a problem. Blessed Pope John Paul The Great was a believer in theistic evolution.

Just something to think about.

No one here has labeled science bad. The issue is pseudo science and the dangers it poses to the children we send off to school, college, and university. Please go back to the O.P. access the link to the Magis Center, it is self explanatory. Linus2nd

 

[Razanir]

No one here has labeled science bad. The issue is pseudo science and the dangers it poses to the children we send off to school, college, and university. Please go back to the O.P. access the link to the Magis Center, it is self explanatory. Linus2nd

Linusthe2nd, it’s getting more irritating now. You should really try reading this whole thread you’ve started because you clearly don’t understand what’s going on in it. We’re on to a 5th page of discussion about:

1. If this problem exists,
2. If every science teacher/book propogates it, and
3. If all science is pseudoscience or not.

People in this thread (the way I read posts) actually have labelled science as bad. And while we’re on this 5th page of discussion, all I’ve seen you do is stop by once a page to yell at ME to get back on topic and to look at the OP again. Note that I said ME. This post I’m quoting is one of the only times you’ve ever said something like this to anyone else.

Note: I have posts/page set to 25, not the default 15. This of course influences page count

 

[revert_jen]

We’re on to a 5th page of discussion about:

1. If this problem exists,
2. If every science teacher/book propogates it, and
3. If all science is pseudoscience or not.

Maybe I haven’t been paying enough attention, but I don’t remember anyone arguing that 2 or 3 were true. Maybe it sounded like that sometimes, but I didn’t think that was anyone’s actual position.

–Jen

 

[Razanir]

Linusthe2nd, it’s getting more irritating now. You should really try reading this whole thread you’ve started because you clearly don’t understand what’s going on in it. We’re on to a 5th page of discussion about:

1. If this problem exists,
2. If every science teacher/book propogates it, and
3. If all science is pseudoscience or not.

People in this thread (the way I read posts) actually have labelled science as bad. And while we’re on this 5th page of discussion, all I’ve seen you do is stop by once a page to yell at ME to get back on topic and to look at the OP again. Note that I said ME. This post I’m quoting is one of the only times you’ve ever said something like this to anyone else.

Note: I have posts/page set to 25, not the default 15. This of course influences page count

I would like to make a correction. You have replied 9 times, which is once per 15-post page. Also, only twice have they been pointed at me. However, I stand by my claim that you do not know your own thread very well, because you have only ever posted to refer us back to the OP or tell us to “get on topic,” never to actually contribute to the conversation

 

[Razanir]

Maybe I haven’t been paying enough attention, but I don’t remember anyone arguing that 2 or 3 were true. Maybe it sounded like that sometimes, but I didn’t think that was anyone’s actual position.

–Jen

Perhaps that is true, but the discussion is still much broader than just “How to protect our children”

 

[pocohombre]

Just viewed “Agenda”. A documentary by a congressman, showing our “decline”, including educational and why. The disestablishment of religion from the public sector, especially in education, is well documented. I have also read , " The NEA,The Trojan Horse in American Education".

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linusthe2nd, it’s getting more irritating now. You should really try reading this whole thread you’ve started because you clearly don’t understand what’s going on in it. We’re on to a 5th page of discussion about:

1. If this problem exists,
2. If every science teacher/book propogates it, and
3. If all science is pseudoscience or not.

People in this thread (the way I read posts) actually have labelled science as bad. And while we’re on this 5th page of discussion, all I’ve seen you do is stop by once a page to yell at ME to get back on topic and to look at the OP again. Note that I said ME. This post I’m quoting is one of the only times you’ve ever said something like this to anyone else.

Note: I have posts/page set to 25, not the default 15. This of course influences page count

I never said no people think science is bad, I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. But I think most people think science is good, very productive. I’ve asked you to actually check out the link to the Magis Center. Don’t you think Fr. Spitzer know what he is talking about?
And no, I have not read through each post, I made my point in the O.P. I am surprised that you found it so objectionable. Can’t please everyone. Some people just like to argue. What else can I say?

Over 1,600 folks have stopped by. Very satisfactory. My O.P. will do some good in spite of nay sayers. Linus2nd

 

[Razanir]

I never said no people think science is bad, I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. But I think most people think science is good, very productive. I’ve asked you to actually check out the link to the Magis Center. Don’t you think Fr. Spitzer know what he is talking about?
And no, I have not read through each post, I made my point in the O.P. I am surprised that you found it so objectionable. Can’t please everyone. Some people just like to argue. What else can I say?

Over 1,600 folks have stopped by. Very satisfactory. My O.P. will do some good in spite of nay sayers. Linus2nd

I have 4 polite challenges for you:

1. Go back and read the thread. While we are not technically on the topic of the OP, we are exceedingly close. Instead of debating how to protect our children, we are discussing whether this problem exists and if it is so widespread
2. Stop making an appeal to authority. You can’t say something is true just because someone with credentials said so
3. Try contributing to the discussion. So far all you’ve done is point us back at the OP
4. Stop being so high and mighty. It’s exceedingly cocky of you to say “Over 1,600 folks have stopped by. Very satisfactory. My O.P. will do some good in spite of nay sayers.”

 

[Rodya]

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

Good day brothers and sisters.

Thanks for a thought provoking post Linus2nd.

I’m sorry to be pedantic, but it’s “losing”, not “loosing”.

I make grammatical mistakes and typographical errors all the time, so I’m hardly one to talk, but I’ve noticed otherwise intelligent-seeming people making this error more and more. This and “thru” for “through” are really starting to annoy me.

“Loosing” for “losing” is especially bad for catholics, though, because one of the most important parts of the gospel for us is Matthew 16:19, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

So please, I beg you all, fellow catholics, let’s learn the difference between “loose” and “lose”.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have 4 polite challenges for you:

1. Go back and read the thread. While we are not technically on the topic of the OP, we are exceedingly close. Instead of debating how to protect our children, we are discussing whether this problem exists and if it is so widespread
2. Stop making an appeal to authority. You can’t say something is true just because someone with credentials said so
3. Try contributing to the discussion. So far all you’ve done is point us back at the OP
4. Stop being so high and mighty. It’s exceedingly cocky of you to say “Over 1,600 folks have stopped by. Very satisfactory. My O.P. will do some good in spite of nay sayers.”

Sorry you feel that way. Arguing from authority and personal experience is sufficient. If you want more specific proof just go to u-tube and watch the debates which have been taking place throughout college and university campuses and other places. You can also research the organized atheist attempts to shut down last year,s World Youth Day in Spain. Also there are media appearances by the same atheist/scientist propagandists, these are available to everyone. You must be aware of all this?

And the point about the number of folks stopping by has nothing to do with being " cocky, " it is to simply illustrate that this issue is something lots of folks are aware of and would like some help. Again, sorry you feel the need to engage in rash judgment.

Linus2nd

 

[seakelp]

Maybe everyone in this thread needs to take a step back and just think for a moment about what the real points of contention are.

The main question seems to be empirical: are science teachers teaching “bad,” “pseudo,” &c., science?

No one would say that a science teacher teaching creationism is any different from a math teacher teaching students that 2 +2 = 5. Everyone agrees that science teachers should teach science.

The only issue is an apparent accusation that some (unstated) amount of science teachers teach “bad” science. It seems to me that someone needs to do some research and find some hard numbers (if there are any). I think we should all be suspicious of anecdotal evidence. We need hard data.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Maybe everyone in this thread needs to take a step back and just think for a moment about what the real points of contention are.

The main question seems to be empirical: are science teachers teaching “bad,” “pseudo,” &c., science?

No one would say that a science teacher teaching creationism is any different from a math teacher teaching students that 2 +2 = 5. Everyone agrees that science teachers should teach science.

The only issue is an apparent accusation that some (unstated) amount of science teachers teach “bad” science. It seems to me that someone needs to do some research and find some hard numbers (if there are any). I think we should all be suspicious of anecdotal evidence. We need hard data.

The numbers of those who have stopped by are now over 1,700. Obviously many parents have personal reasons to be concerned. This is not to say that all those stopping by are parents but we can assume a goodly number are and we can assume that a certain number of those are non-parents, perhaps students who also recognize the need.

The problem is not limited to teachers teaching bad science, I mean those who stretch their teaching beyond the proper limits of science. I’m sure that doesn’t occur except perhaps when it comes to discussing evolution, ethics, medical practices, certaing subjects in life sciences, etc. The problem surfaces also in spontaneous remarks by teachers and instructors which are not part of the course cirriculum and the social interactions that occur outside the classroom, sponsered lectures, that kind of thing. Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Good day brothers and sisters.

Thanks for a thought provoking post Linus2nd.

I’m sorry to be pedantic, but it’s “losing”, not “loosing”.

I make grammatical mistakes and typographical errors all the time, so I’m hardly one to talk, but I’ve noticed otherwise intelligent-seeming people making this error more and more. This and “thru” for “through” are really starting to annoy me.

“Loosing” for “losing” is especially bad for catholics, though, because one of the most important parts of the gospel for us is Matthew 16:19, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

So please, I beg you all, fellow catholics, let’s learn the difference between “loose” and “lose”.

Sorry that offended you so. It would be nice to be as perfect as some others. I admit I have always had a spelling problem. Thank you. Linus2nd

 

[seakelp]

The numbers of those who have stopped by are now over 1,700. Obviously many parents have personal reasons to be concerned. This is not to say that all those stopping by are parents but we can assume a goodly number are and we can assume that a certain number of those are non-parents, perhaps students who also recognize the need.

Linus, the number of people who read this thread is not at all correlated with the number of bad science teachers, or the number of science classrooms where bad science is being taught. Surely you can understand that?

The problem is not limited to teachers teaching bad science, I mean those who stretch their teaching beyond the proper limits of science.

Fair enough. We add that:

1. How many science classrooms teach bad science?
2. How many science classrooms teach bad philosophy / philosophy that shouldn’t be taught in a sciene classroom?

I’m sure that doesn’t occur except perhaps when it comes to discussing evolution, ethics, medical practices, certaing subjects in life sciences, etc. The problem surfaces also in spontaneous remarks by teachers and instructors which are not part of the course cirriculum and the social interactions that occur outside the classroom, sponsered lectures, that kind of thing. Linus2nd

Let’s set that issue aside. If a scientist, outside of the classroom, wishes to express his or her own opinion on any issue, I don’t think there’s a problem.

But let’s try and actually get hard data for the two questions I posed above. That’s the only way we can determine whether this discussion is worthwhile.

 

[Ion]

The subject of evolution is banned, but I thik the subject of the history of this thery it is not.
And this history starts with practically nothing, an opinion based on “couple of beaks” and imense ignorance as was the scientific level of that time. The science didn’t grow based on this theory, or trying to prove it or disprove it but mainly for technologically reasons. One of the scientific gibberish is this connection between the technological advance and this theory, suggesting that without this theory there would be no technological advance. It is spoken about science as would necessary have to include this theory, which is a big lie. If you erase it, absolutely nothing is lost. It is safely isolated from reality because any proof would have to include at least millions of years, which are unavailable.
During the time, the theoy was permanently adjusted and changed to fit with the overall scietific progress, not to mention the support of imense lies to make it credible.

 

[edwest2]

Hard numbers? Just go on the internet and you will find a ton of articles, with one showing a map, where “creationism” is being taught in public schools. The anti-religious are watching you. They have every single target identified. They name names. That’s why a few post here because those who disagree must be forced to conform.

Who cares if a lot of kids don’t graduate high school or that a good portion of the country is functionally illiterate as long as they believe this one thing? And they will not rest until full compliance is achieved.

Peace,
Ed