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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
If only that were true. That’s why a prominent professor of Biology goes on TV to rail against a mythical being, and it’s all based on science. I’ll bet a lot of people don’t ignore him because he is a professor after all.

Abuse of scientific authority is still abuse - of the public.

Peace,
Ed
 
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
If your child has been brought up to have an open and enquiring mind, they should be able to make decisions and choices for themselves and you should respect the choices they make. Even if they are different from your own. People are fee to believe what they choose to believe
 
Actually, it is 100% true. It’s great that you found somewhere in California that does it differently, but that isn’t my experience.
Ah, I see, you found one book where there was nothing opposing Catholic teaching, one professor who wasn’t full of himself. Very good. How about the fifty or hundred others that are or will be required reading? How about all of your instructors? You see Jimmy I know that generally speaking, your little tale just isn’t true. We may not be at the university now but we have been there you see. Linus2nd
 
If your child has been brought up to have an open and enquiring mind, they should be able to make decisions and choices for themselves and you should respect the choices they make. Even if they are different from your own. People are fee to believe what they choose to believe
So you have caved to the Dictatorship of Relativism. Congratulations. But when your child comes home an atheist or worse, perhaps you will feel differently. Linus2nd
 
If your child has been brought up to have an open and enquiring mind, they should be able to make decisions and choices for themselves and you should respect the choices they make. Even if they are different from your own. People are fee to believe what they choose to believe
For Catholics, there is only one way to raise a child. It is our duty. And I know grown adults that have less sense than 10 year olds.

Catholic parents should love their children and tell them, straight up, when they’re doing wrong. Or you get the following: “When I turn 18, I don’t gotta listen to you anymore!”

Respect bad choices? Never. If they get in trouble with the law or end up in the ER, then what? Sure, they’re free to be stupid, but that implies they’ve found a new way to invent the wheel. Man has not changed in the last 2,000 years.

Ed
 
Actually, it is 100% true. It’s great that you found somewhere in California that does it differently, but that isn’t my experience.
You obviously didn’t read the article. A science web site was using religious statements to sell a product with taxpayer money. For them, the end justifies the means, even if it means using religion to sell what they call science.

Peace,
Ed
 
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
Because I read the title of the thread!
 
Can you give an example of something that is in a science textbook that you disagree with?
“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)"

That is philosophy, NOT science. Tell me the average student will ignore that statement. It’s in a textbook, right?

Peace,
Ed
 
If only that were true. That’s why a prominent professor of Biology goes on TV to rail against a mythical being, and it’s all based on science. I’ll bet a lot of people don’t ignore him because he is a professor after all.
Ed,

I see nothing wrong with that. What we are talking about is a prominent professor of biology giving an opinion piece. I have a book in my home library where another prominent professor of biology has the opposite opinion. I would censor neither, nor would I discourage either. The fact is that many a scientist goes into a subject wholeheartedly and enthusiastically believing and expecting certain conclusions consistent with their world view and come out disproving themselves all the time. What I consider to be “junk science” is those who describe as scientific fact that which cannot be truly determined by the scientific method. If one wants to introduce such opinions in a science class, it should be balanced with the best argument for the opposite opinion. Would one treat as scientific fact a weather prediction in a five day forecast? Not me. But I sure would listen to the best that science can offer.
 
Ed,

I see nothing wrong with that. What we are talking about is a prominent professor of biology giving an opinion piece. I have a book in my home library where another prominent professor of biology has the opposite opinion. I would censor neither, nor would I discourage either. The fact is that many a scientist goes into a subject wholeheartedly and enthusiastically believing and expecting certain conclusions consistent with their world view and come out disproving themselves all the time. What I consider to be “junk science” is those who describe as scientific fact that which cannot be truly determined by the scientific method. If one wants to introduce such opinions in a science class, it should be balanced with the best argument for the opposite opinion. Would one treat as scientific fact a weather prediction in a five day forecast? Not me. But I sure would listen to the best that science can offer.
Ignore the obvious if you like. The more I see threads like this, the more I see the litmus test pushed in my face: “do you accept?” Because if I don’t accept, I’m accused of hysteria, crippling my kids and dooming them to a life of “do you want fries with that”? Because, I’ve been told that once my kids enter the sacred public school and accept the belief system there, they will reject what I’ve taught them.

What a bunch uh baloney.

Peace,
Ed
 
Ah, I see, you found one book where there was nothing opposing Catholic teaching, one professor who wasn’t full of himself. Very good. How about the fifty or hundred others that are or will be required reading? How about all of your instructors? You see Jimmy I know that generally speaking, your little tale just isn’t true. We may not be at the university now but we have been there you see. Linus2nd
Well that’s a bit hypocritical. His personal experience in college must logically be based on only one situation and cannot apply because it is only one professor out of many, but YOUR college experience is perfectly applicable despite you having the same degree of limited personal experiences with the situation?
So you have caved to the Dictatorship of Relativism. Congratulations. But when your child comes home an atheist or worse, perhaps you will feel differently. Linus2nd
You’ve got it completely backwards. Because our kids will be taught evolution and global warming and such and how there is no conflict between science and faith, they will have no problem retaining their faith. It is the children of those who teach them evolution and such is a lie that, when they go off to college and discover first hand the insurmountable evidence for it all, will be forced to doubt everything else, including their faith, that their parents taught them when they were younger. It happens all the time, especially among evangelicals.
“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)"

That is philosophy, NOT science. Tell me the average student will ignore that statement. It’s in a textbook, right?

Peace,
Ed
As usual Ed, you’re reading way, WAY too much into it. Nothing about that says God doesn’t exist or that God can’t be behind it all. Scientifically speaking (which is, naturally), evolution is undirected and purposeless. God has a purpose for it, but since God is supernatural, his purpose has no impact on whether or not evolution is scientifically (read: NATURALLY) unguided.
 
“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)"

That is philosophy, NOT science. Tell me the average student will ignore that statement. It’s in a textbook, right?

Peace,
Ed
Ed, these quotes are pretty enlightening / interesting to me. But they may be taken out of context.
 
Ignore the obvious if you like. The more I see threads like this, the more I see the litmus test pushed in my face: “do you accept?” Because if I don’t accept, I’m accused of hysteria, crippling my kids and dooming them to a life of “do you want fries with that”? Because, I’ve been told that once my kids enter the sacred public school and accept the belief system there, they will reject what I’ve taught them.

What a bunch uh baloney.

Peace,
Ed
Considering that some 90% of religious kids stop going to church when they ship off to college, it is anything but a bunch of baloney. It’s a very serious matter and you’ll forgive us if we don’t take is as lightly nor treat it as callously as you do.
 
Ignore the obvious if you like. The more I see threads like this, the more I see the litmus test pushed in my face: “do you accept?” Because if I don’t accept, I’m accused of hysteria, crippling my kids and dooming them to a life of “do you want fries with that”? Because, I’ve been told that once my kids enter the sacred public school and accept the belief system there, they will reject what I’ve taught them.

What a bunch uh baloney.

Peace,
Ed
What a small world! I went into a fast food joint and was served by a nervous, crippled kid who said “Do you want fries with that?”. That wasn’t your kid, was it? 😃

I’m having trouble deciphering a consistent theme to your position. Let me take a stab at it. You believe education is first & foremost a parent’s responsibility. You seem to believe that a parent can more or less vaccinate their kid from external influences of the public school. Yet, you are fully in favor of censoring anti-God teachers / professors. I think you cited a case of religion introduced as science that rendered a sort of “junk science”. Am I to deduce that your basic message is that all religious influence should be censored from science classes? But since it is not, don’t bellyache if you haven’t prepared your kids for the challenges that they will face. Is that basically right?

If so, our only point of departure would be the necessity of censoring opinion pieces of teachers / professors outside of class curricula.
 
Just so we’re all clear: evolution is science, and there is nothing wrong with a Catholic accepting it according to the Vatican. It’s true. Creationism is not science, it is gibberish.

With that resolved, let’s move on…
 
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
Co-ed dorms don’t necessarily lead to sex. It will happen either way. It has more to do with the people than the living spaces
As usual Ed, you’re reading way, WAY too much into it. Nothing about that says God doesn’t exist or that God can’t be behind it all. Scientifically speaking (which is, naturally), evolution is undirected and purposeless. God has a purpose for it, but since God is supernatural, his purpose has no impact on whether or not evolution is scientifically (read: NATURALLY) unguided.
Ed, these quotes are pretty enlightening / interesting to me. But they may be taken out of context.
What I still want to know is if the emphases were actually in the original. EVERY textbook I’ve ever used has only used emphases to indicate new vocab words
 
Well that’s a bit hypocritical. His personal experience in college must logically be based on only one situation and cannot apply because it is only one professor out of many, but YOUR college experience is perfectly applicable despite you having the same degree of limited personal experiences with the situation?

You’ve got it completely backwards. Because our kids will be taught evolution and global warming and such and how there is no conflict between science and faith, they will have no problem retaining their faith. It is the children of those who teach them evolution and such is a lie that, when they go off to college and discover first hand the insurmountable evidence for it all, will be forced to doubt everything else, including their faith, that their parents taught them when they were younger. It happens all the time, especially among evangelicals.

As usual Ed, you’re reading way, WAY too much into it. Nothing about that says God doesn’t exist or that God can’t be behind it all. Scientifically speaking (which is, naturally), evolution is undirected and purposeless. God has a purpose for it, but since God is supernatural, his purpose has no impact on whether or not evolution is scientifically (read: NATURALLY) unguided.
Naturally unguided? That makes no sense at all. A series of fortuitous accidents? That’s what too many believe today.

Too bad.

Ed
 
Just so we’re all clear: evolution is science, and there is nothing wrong with a Catholic accepting it according to the Vatican. It’s true. Creationism is not science, it is gibberish.

With that resolved, let’s move on…
Nothing has been resolved. There is nowhere to move on to.

It’s true? I find that doubtful. It’s not reproducible.

Ed
 
Naturally unguided? That makes no sense at all. A series of fortuitous accidents? That’s what too many believe today.

Too bad.
It makes perfect sense. Your failure to understand does not equate to nonsense.
 
It’s true? I find that doubtful. It’s not reproducible.
It’s actually quite reproducible and has been many many times, but even if it couldn’t be, it doesn’t matter. “Reproducible” in a scientific context does not mean to actually literally make it happen again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top