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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CatholicGeek1 said:
Because I read the title of the thread!
Click to expand...
But reading the posts that followed you must have realized I did not mean it to apply to science per se and I even explained I meant it to apply specifically to the public exibitions of the " New Atheist " movement. Yet you chose to interpret my comment in the most condemnatory fashion, a blanket condemnation of science. That is a very unjust accusation.

Looks like you read the title and nothing else, for fear of being dislodged from your original thought. Not at all objective.

But now that you mention it, as I mentioned partially above, you certainly cannot pick up a complete set of biology, psychology, medical/nursing, ethics, epistemology, philosophy, sociology, and dozens more texts without coming across something contrary to Catholic teaching. And you cannot find yourself in classes using these texts before you
eventually run into instructors who make outrageous claims or offhand comments or extemporaneous speaches which are challenging to the faith - and absolutely unture - thus abusing their feduciary trust and authority.

Please check the resources I have given you. Linus2nd
 
Farsight001 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Although I think that you are absolutely right that dismissal of the scientific approach to discovering truth in the face of a lack of conflict with official doctrines of faith will strain their parent’s credibility, I doubt that it is a big factor in leaving the church. I wonder how many college students actually take courses in evolutionary biology or global warming … that is, pursue majors where they even take these courses. I also wonder if there is any distinction that could be seen with young adults who never pursue a college education. What I see as more germane to strained parental credibility is more simply where they see their own parent’s conflict with official Church teaching but continue to attend Mass and receive the sacraments without any change. Certainly the blind eye to contraception and cohabitation whose decision the parents “respect” can’t help the credibility of taking the commandments too literally. And when you add clerical scandals and all the internal questions about matters that have had a definitive answer for ages … well, who can trust such a moving “Truth” target?
 
wynnejj said:
Although I think that you are absolutely right that dismissal of the scientific approach to discovering truth in the face of a lack of conflict with official doctrines of faith will strain their parent’s credibility, I doubt that it is a big factor in leaving the church. I wonder how many college students actually take courses in evolutionary biology or global warming … that is, pursue majors where they even take these courses. ?
Click to expand...
You don’t need to take a course in evolutionary biology, though since some form of evolution class is required for an education degree in most states, its a lot more people than you might think. But even a basic biology or geology 101 course, or even astronomy (the most common choices for a science general education requirement) goes enough into the subject of evolution and the age of the earth and the evidence for both to be devastating to preconceived notions about a lack of evidence.
 
Farsight001 said:
You don’t need to take a course in evolutionary biology, though since some form of evolution class is required for an education degree in most states, its a lot more people than you might think. But even a basic biology or geology 101 course, or even astronomy (the most common choices for a science general education requirement) goes enough into the subject of evolution and the age of the earth and the evidence for both to be devastating to preconceived notions about a lack of evidence.
Click to expand...
For the last time, Catholics AREN’T required to be Young-Earth Creationists. Evolution and the Big Bang are just fine to believe
 
Farsight001 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, so when my colleagues say, “Let’s reproduce this person’s data-set to see how we can extend their model.” they really do not mean I have to make it happen again?
 
edwest2 said:
“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
Click to expand...
Couple of things, first, while I admit that is certainly a troubling quote, what is the context that it is presented in? Is it being presented as a scientific conclusion or as an opinion? Is it being presented as something that someone else said? I cannot find the surrounding paragraphs after doing a search for them, so I am unsure.

Also, if that is not part of assigned reading, I don’t think most students would even read it. Since it is on page five it is likely part of the introduction, and based on my experience, would not be part of assigned reading.

Lastly, assuming the worst, that it is not taken out of context,it is being presented as fact, and it is part of assigned reading, it gets back to what I said before, that parents need to teach their children the skills of critical thinking and being able to understand when someone is just pushing an agenda, that would allow them as appropriate argue against the point or simply ignore it.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
But reading the posts that followed you must have realized I did not mean it to apply to science per se and I even explained I meant it to apply specifically to the public exibitions of the " New Atheist " movement. Yet you chose to interpret my comment in the most condemnatory fashion, a blanket condemnation of science. That is a very unjust accusation.

Looks like you read the title and nothing else, for fear of being dislodged from your original thought. Not at all objective.

But now that you mention it, as I mentioned partially above, you certainly cannot pick up a complete set of biology, psychology, medical/nursing, ethics, epistemology, philosophy, sociology, and dozens more texts without coming across something contrary to Catholic teaching. And you cannot find yourself in classes using these texts before you
eventually run into instructors who make outrageous claims or offhand comments or extemporaneous speaches which are challenging to the faith - and absolutely unture - thus abusing their feduciary trust and authority.

Please check the resources I have given you. Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Actually, I have taken many science courses and read many scientific texts without running into something that goes against my faith, so yes it actually can be done.

And to your earlier point, I do not believe that your posts have in any way clarified the situation. You state that you do not want to condemn all science, but anytime science is presented here, you condemn it and lump it into your new atheist group.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
In scientific communities, the case is closed. It’s over. It’s not even as debatable as man-made climate change, for Pete’s sake.
Click to expand...
Remember Blessed John Paul the Great accepted/supported Theistic Evolution and the Catholic Church said that there was nothing wrong with a catholic accepting it. The case should be closed everywhere, not just in scientific communities.
 
Farsight001 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So all those science articles I’ve been reading where other scientists are waiting to reproduce another scientist’s findings don’t count? It DOES mean someone better make it happen or it’s not accepted by the scientific community.

Peace,
Ed
 
Razanir said:
For the last time, Catholics AREN’T required to be Young-Earth Creationists. Evolution and the Big Bang are just fine to believe
Click to expand...
Why do you care? Honestly? Why does this particular thing have to be the ultimate decision? I’ll take the word of God over the word of man.

Sheesh. I’d like to see a photo of this carved in stone…

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
The case is far from closed. Very far.

usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

The more I read dogmatic statements like this, the more obvious that the discussion does not concern science but an ideology.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
It is clear from the quotes in the article that Pope Benedict was referring to Darwinism or forms of evolution theory that reject God. Those go beyond the realm of science and enter into philosophy. The theory of evolution itself, as the mechanical process is sound.
 
edwest2 said:
Why do you care? Honestly? Why does this particular thing have to be the ultimate decision? I’ll take the word of God over the word of man.

Sheesh. I’d like to see a photo of this carved in stone…

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
But the Word of God is not in contradiction to science on this point.

In fact, whenever science stays within the realm of science, they are not in conflict at any point.
 
…so, assuming this is a wide spread problem, does any one have any actionable responses for it?
 
ThinkingSapien said:
…so, assuming this is a wide spread problem, does any one have any actionable responses for it?
Click to expand...
Why do we even need to make this assumption?

And yes, I have a solution that I have posted several times, teach your children to think critically so that they can understand when someone is trying to push an agenda instead of teaching actual science, then they will be prepared to handle those types of people that are found in all walks of life, not just the sciences.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
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
Click to expand...
Hahaha, is that so? You know how it is generally? I am curious how many university science classes have you taken? How many different teachers? At how many different universities? This is necessary to know how well you know the general situation.

With me, it wasn’t just one class. I majored in biology so I had over 20 classes, each with a different professor. Interestingly enough religion wasn’t an issue in any of them. I even took a class at Pitt, and there wasn’t an issue there either.

Have you had any experience with it, or are you just passing on the rumors of others and saying you ‘know’?
 
wynnejj said:
Although I think that you are absolutely right that dismissal of the scientific approach to discovering truth in the face of a lack of conflict with official doctrines of faith will strain their parent’s credibility, I doubt that it is a big factor in leaving the church. I wonder how many college students actually take courses in evolutionary biology or global warming … that is, pursue majors where they even take these courses. I also wonder if there is any distinction that could be seen with young adults who never pursue a college education. What I see as more germane to strained parental credibility is more simply where they see their own parent’s conflict with official Church teaching but continue to attend Mass and receive the sacraments without any change. Certainly the blind eye to contraception and cohabitation whose decision the parents “respect” can’t help the credibility of taking the commandments too literally. And when you add clerical scandals and all the internal questions about matters that have had a definitive answer for ages … well, who can trust such a moving “Truth” target?
Click to expand...
As a bio major, I had to take evolutionary biology, but not a global warming class.
 
CatholicGeek1 said:
Remember Blessed John Paul the Great accepted/supported Theistic Evolution and the Catholic Church said that there was nothing wrong with a catholic accepting it. The case should be closed everywhere, not just in scientific communities.
Click to expand...
It should. My SIL, who teaches at a large public university, has had a number of students come up to him and say, “Even though I’m Catholic, I accept evolution.” The fundamentalists in the area have been a big influence.

To quote my SIL; “Evolution is God’s ‘modus operandi’.” Why we continue to get our knickers in such a twist is beyond me.
 
dixieagle said:
It should. My SIL, who teaches at a large public university, has had a number of students come up to him and say, “Even though I’m Catholic, I accept evolution.” The fundamentalists in the area have been a big influence.

To quote my SIL; “Evolution is God’s ‘modus operandi’.” Why we continue to get our knickers in such a twist is beyond me.
Click to expand...
I love this quote! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top