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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Linusthe2nd said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy
I am so glad you started this thread, because science has never accomplished anything…except the invention of computers, phones, tv’s, cameras, the Internet (on which we can go on catholic answers), the internal combustion engine, cars, airplanes, space travel, the electric light, the radio, internal heating and air, refrigiration, vaccines for polio, small pox, measles, and other diseases, steroids and other drugs, anesthesia, artificial hearts, artificial limbs, pacemakers, robotics, planes that don’t need a pilot to fly, siri for your iPhone, electric guitars, pianos, and amps, microwaves, sewage, nuclear power, solar power, wind energy…

But the point is that science has done nothing. It is false, and we need to shelter ourselves and our kids from its LIES.

Yes, that is quite humorous. The problem is no one denies the value or the successes of science. You seem to debating a straw man. Neither I nor anyone else here has even hinted at such an idea. Sorry you seem to have missed the point altogether. Linus2nd
Click to expand...
You have said that many times, and you can say it as many as you like. The fact remains however, that it is the opinion that many people have of this thread.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
This is why I do not feel most parents should be teaching there children these subjects. They should leave it to those that truly understand it.

As I have said before and will say again, as a parent, please teach your child to think critically. That way when someone does step outside the bounds of what they should be teaching and move into their agenda (if they do) your child will be able to see that and respond to or disregard the suspect information appropriately.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If they can think critically they will be able to take care of themselves if they need to.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Now we are getting into sex ed, not science class. To me these are two different topics. Schools should not, in my opinion be in the sex ed business. The problem is that too many parents are also not in that business so someone has to do it.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t give any person but myself the authority to give my child sex education. I would rather they learned it in the street.

I did not bring it up, you and one other poster did. But yes, there is a lot of harm being done in the classroom and in other school situations ( i.e. lectures, nurses office, counselors office, etc.). And of course at the college and university levels " sex " starts with co-ed dorms. How about that for absolute insanity and moral harm. Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I wouldn’t give any person but myself the authority to give my child sex education. I would rather they learned it in the street.

I did not bring it up, you and one other poster did. But yes, there is a lot of harm being done in the classroom and in other school situations ( i.e. lectures, nurses office, counselors office, etc.). And of course at the college and university levels " sex " starts with co-ed dorms. How about that for absolute insanity and moral harm. Linus2nd
Click to expand...
I really do not want to get into a debate about co-ed dorms here as it is way off the topic of this thread.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
I wouldn’t give any person but myself the authority to give my child sex education. I would rather they learned it in the street.

I did not bring it up, you and one other poster did. But yes, there is a lot of harm being done in the classroom and in other school situations ( i.e. lectures, nurses office, counselors office, etc.). And of course at the college and university levels " sex " starts with co-ed dorms. How about that for absolute insanity and moral harm. Linus2nd
Click to expand...
If kids want to have sex, they will find a way. You can’t blame co-ed dorms.
 
jimmy said:
If kids want to have sex, they will find a way. You can’t blame co-ed dorms.
Click to expand...
Every Pope since this first started happening would disagree with you, so do the U.S. Bishops. Oh, I know, they are just old fuddy duddies. Linus2nd
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
But Blessed John Paul the Great did not label science as gibberish, and in fact was very supportive of science.

There are atheists in every walk of life. They are not limited to science or classrooms, and some of those will attempt to push their agenda. That is just the way it is. Prepare your children to think critically and debate rationally and they will be able to handle those people. Do not fail to expose them to things for the sake of “protecting” them.
Click to expand...
Why do you insist that I have labeled science as " jibberish, " I did no such thing. If you have read my posts, you should realize I had in mind what is commonly called tenents of the " New Atheism. "

Now I have given you sources. Do you think they went to the trouble they did just for the exercise? The last three Popes and the U.S. Bishops are certainly concerned as part of the general problem of the Dictatorship of Relativism. Linus2md
 
seakelp said:
Should science teachers teach kids about God and philosophy? No. No more than a theologian should be teaching kids about mitosis or anatomy. But are they actually doing it? Statistically, there are likely a handful. But some posters seem to think there is some large-scale conspiracy going on, and I am 99% sure that there just isn’t.
Click to expand...
I’m with you here. I would guess that 99% of scientists do not speak authoritatively outside their field of expertise. It has a way of diminishing their overall authoritative credibility. Opinions, though, are another matter. Opinions, I’m sure, in scientific circles tend to conform to those of the scientists who are subject matter experts. If those who study evolution are primarily atheists … as one poster suggested scientists tend to be atheists … then who would have the most to lose if their personal belief systems are in question. Put it another way … you’re a Catholic whose belief system is under attack by a sincere atheist on CAF … who is most likely to give an “authoritative” junk answer to a really tough question that’s not easily proved. Why do you think we have banned topics on the very topics most central to Christian witness … because we behave badly when our belief systems are under attack. The Magis Center says there is scientific discovery that tends towards the conclusion that God exists is not being discussed and pursued in scientific circles. I’m sure that to most scientists outside these fields, these topics are coffee break chatter for lively light banter, more interesting than weather predictions, with a kind of “Why do I let myself read the check-out line scandal sheets, anyway?” sort of attitude. That is, it has the aura of a quest for extraterrestrials and Big Foot and paranormal investigations.
 
Farsight001 said:
The point is that as much as we know the media exaggerates and misrepresents the Catholic Church they do it just as bad to scientists. Don’t blame the scientists. Just as you might encourage a person to read the pope’s encyclical instead of taking the media’s interpretation of it at face value, read the scientists’ journal articles instead of taking the media’s interpretation of it at face value.
Click to expand...
There are the cases where scientists can be called to task, but I agree that they are few and far between. The point of scientific peer review is to be able to repeat the test or put a different slant on it that should result in a predictable outcome based on the previous study that would soon show any funny business or help to refine the conclusions of the previous study. Intentional falsification of data is usually met with sanctions if it reflects badly on the scientific community dependent upon grants for its pursuits.

But the Magis Center seems to think it has more to do with what the science community chooses to pursue that is the deficiency.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wynnejj
If you spend time on the Magis Center web site, you will have to conclude that much of it deals with “the existence of God”. The contention that there is “scientific gibberish” is based on the claim that science curriculum ignores scientific evidence that supports the existence of God.
Click to expand...
The philosophical or theological conclusions one might draw from truths about nature revealed through science hardly belong in a classroom.
Click to expand...
My Reponse
This statement is too broad to be justified. One surely has the right to defend the faith, whatever the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wynnejj
Discussions of atheism & evolution will necessarily be invited if explored in depth when the purpose of the thread is not to invite discussion at that level. The purpose is to say “What’s a mother to do when their kids aren’t getting the whole story?”.
Click to expand...
She can, at her own election, talk to her kids at home. No one thinks this is a bad idea.

My Response
And I am trying to show her how.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wynnejj
That is, how to augment their education for the education systems deficiencies. It would be no different than asking how do parents educate their children in the faith if their kids have to go to public school. It would not be a thread about “Is faith education necessary to augment public education?”. It’s not about changing the public school system to meet our requirements? (At least, that’s how I understand the thread’s purpose. Correct me if I’m wrong, Linus.)
Click to expand...
Your Response
I won’t try to discern some posters’ thoughts, because they haven’t been as responsive to questions as some of us hope they would be. But, from what I have taken from this thread, most people seem to believe that there is some conspiracy among science teachers to use their classroom time to turn kids into atheists.
Click to expand...
My Response.
That is an unjustified, and false conclusion. Neither I nor anyone else here has suggested anything of the kind.

But I do say that the issue I raised is part and parcel of the Dictatorship of Relativism the last three Popes have been so concerned about. It is, as it were, part of the milk of our culture, of which H.S., college and university campuses are a product.
But each time we ask someone for some statistics or evidence, we get replies to “look it up for yourself,” &c. Why? I suspect because there is no data supporting any such conclusion.
Click to expand...
I am not writing a dissertation or a book. My proofs are based on the authority of responsible, well educated persons of the Catholic Faith, including three Popes.
Should science teachers teach kids about God and philosophy? No. No more than a theologian should be teaching kids about mitosis or anatomy. But are they actually doing it? Statistically, there are likely a handful. But some posters seem to think there is some large-scale conspiracy going on, and I am 99% sure that there just isn’t

Yes, but when science teachers theach things that are opposed to the faith or imply conclusions that are opposed to the faith, that is one of the things I am pointing out.
Click to expand...
This is a problem at every level, through graduate school. Again, no one here is suggesting a conspiracy. It is intellectual and moral death by osmosis, as it were.
Click to expand...
My Proofs
  1. Magis Center, magisreasonfaith.org/about_spitzer.html
Click to expand...
  1. Cardinal Newman Society, cardinalnewmansociety.org/
  2. Newman Centers nation wide, view each sites web page
  3. Writings of Blessed John Paul ll, esp. " Reason and Faith "
  4. Writings of Pope Emeritis Benedict XVl
  5. Dr. Edward Feser blog, edwardfeser.blogspot.com/
  6. Dr. Benjimin Wiker web site, benjaminwiker.com/
Authorities
  1. Fr. Robert J. Spitzer Phd, From Wikipedia : Spitzer received the degree of Bachelors of Business Administration, with a focus on Public Accounting and Finance (magna cum laude)from Gonzaga University in 1974. He then received a Masters degree in Philosophy from St. Louis University (magna cum laude) in 1978, a Masters of Divinity degree from the Gregorian University in Rome (summa cum laude) in 1983, a Master of Theology degree in Scripture from the Weston School, now the Boston College School of Theology and Ministry, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, (summa cum laude) in 1984, and a Doctor of Philosophy from the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC (summa cum laude) in 1988. His dissertation, under Paul Weiss, is entitled A Study of Objectively Real Time.
  2. William F. Buckley, " God and Man at Yale " and numerous others, syndacted debate program on public television for about 20 years, founder and editor of National Review Magizine ( deceased )
  3. Dr. Benjimin Wiker, " Worshiping the State, " many others, active web site above.
  4. Dr. Edward Feser, " Aquinas, " " The Greatest Superstition, " " Mind, " " Lock, "
    noted debater in demand challenging the " New Atheism, " active and valuable blog spot cited above.
  5. Blessed John Paul ll, " Reason and Faith, " and many others
  6. Pope Emeritis Benedict XVl, whole history of writing
  7. Pope Francis, has mentiond the Dictatorship of Relativism at nearly many appearances, including sermons at Mass.
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
 
seakelp said:
Should science teachers teach kids about God and philosophy? No. No more than a theologian should be teaching kids about mitosis or anatomy. But are they actually doing it? Statistically, there are likely a handful. But some posters seem to think there is some large-scale conspiracy going on, and I am 99% sure that there just isn’t.
Click to expand...
I took an Evol. bio class at Penn State. On the first day the teacher spoke about how there is no contradiction between evolution and faith. He then quoted JPII to support it. He did this to get out of the way any potential faith issues. There is no reason to see a contradiction between the two, so now lets learn about evolution. In every other science class I took at Penn State, religion or theology was never even mentioned. That is my experience, and that is the way I think it should be. Science class isn’t the place for theology; it is the place for science.
 
jimmy said:
I took an Evol. bio class at Penn State. On the first day the teacher spoke about how there is no contradiction between evolution and faith. He then quoted JPII to support it. He did this to get out of the way any potential faith issues. There is no reason to see a contradiction between the two, so now lets learn about evolution. In every other science class I took at Penn State, religion or theology was never even mentioned. That is my experience, and that is the way I think it should be. Science class isn’t the place for theology; it is the place for science.
Click to expand...
I think JPII would have to have audited your Evolution Biology class to determine if the class material offered had any contradictions between your evolution materials and faith.

I think the “junk science” is not necessarily what is taught in the class rooms and science classes. Maybe what we are talking about here is prominent scientist’s authoritative opinions about the information that they highlight.

It’s like gossip from a purportedly reliable source.
 
jimmy said:
I took an Evol. bio class at Penn State. On the first day the teacher spoke about how there is no contradiction between evolution and faith. He then quoted JPII to support it. He did this to get out of the way any potential faith issues. There is no reason to see a contradiction between the two, so now lets learn about evolution. In every other science class I took at Penn State, religion or theology was never even mentioned. That is my experience, and that is the way I think it should be. Science class isn’t the place for theology; it is the place for science.
Click to expand...
If only that were true.

evolutionnews.org/2008/06/university_of_california_defen007541.html

Peace,
Ed
 
wynnejj said:
I think JPII would have to have audited your Evolution Biology class to determine if the class material offered had any contradictions between your evolution materials and faith.

I think the “junk science” is not necessarily what is taught in the class rooms and science classes. Maybe what we are talking about here is prominent scientist’s authoritative opinions about the information that they highlight.

It’s like gossip from a purportedly reliable source.
Click to expand...
Since there was no opinion on faith or morals, JPII’s opinion of it would be irrelevant. The pope has no authority when it comes to biology.

I am still not sure what you mean by junk science. I wouldn’t trust Richard Dawkins on religion, but when it comes to evolution, he knows his stuff. But no one has ever passed The God Delusion off as a science book.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
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.
Click to expand...
You who are on the road
Must have a code that you can live by
And so become yourself
Because the past is just a good bye.

Teach your children well,
Their father’s hell did slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you’ll know by.

Don’t you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.

And you, of tender years,
Can’t know the fears that your elders grew by,
And so please help them with your youth,
They seek the truth before they can die.

Teach Your Children, Crosby Stills Nash Young
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top