The OP’s point is that in schools, just like here, we get: “It all happened by itself,” referring to how you and I got here. And then we have the useless God veneer thinly covering that “truth” just to make Christians think otherwise. A lawsuit was brought against a web site that used public dollars to promote this idea and quoted various religious ministers saying: “Hey, it’s OK.”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.
Sadly, some school teachers do not like God and wish to add their opinions to the discussion. To put it another way: “It all happened by itself.” No God required. Nothing supernatural here folks. It’s all about accidents. The Creator did not create accidents.It can tell us about the world that He created, and therefore give us a better understanding of Him. This is one of the reasons that I believe God gave us intelligence, so that we could better understand Him.
A short list of peer-reviewed papers with God in the titles would be appreciated.ahem! Of course it can.
You are off topic.With all due respect to say you ‘cannot measure an infinite God’ means you must have some knowledge of God to make that statement. What is your knowledge that indicates an infinite God cannot be measured. And why do you think not?
I don’t think many scientists are pursuing God as it does not seem a worthwhile venture. I imagine it is difficult to get funding for it, as they may get laughed at. Or maybe it just does not have any scientific value or real-world applications.A short list of peer-reviewed papers with God in the titles would be appreciated.
Ed
I read it in a Church document titled Humani Generis.How do you know that?
How does anyone “think critically”? Especially if they take it for granted that their teachers are all trustworthy, as my relative said to me after questioning one of her college textbooks: "Why would they lie to me?’The concept of evolution is foundational to disbelief only if it is used/interpreted improperly. If it is used as an explanation of the processes used by God, it is not foundational to disbelief, it is foundational to understanding the world our God created.
There are people that write junk, on every subject in every time. Teach kids to think critically and they can tell the good from the bad.
April, please don’t hijack this thread.I don’t think many scientists are pursuing God as it does not seem a worthwhile venture. I imagine it is difficult to get funding for it, as they may get laughed at. Or maybe it just does not have any scientific value or real-world applications.
But the real question is, how widespread is this? Does it really constitute a mass problem or is it a few isolated incidents?Sadly, some school teachers do not like God and wish to add their opinions to the discussion. To put it another way: “It all happened by itself.” No God required. Nothing supernatural here folks. It’s all about accidents. The Creator did not create accidents.
Peace,
Ed
If someone takes everything they are told by a person in authority as being true, that is a perfect example of someone not taught to think critically.How does anyone “think critically”? Especially if they take it for granted that their teachers are all trustworthy, as my relative said to me after questioning one of her college textbooks: "Why would they lie to me?’
I have heard her say something I knew to be wrong but she just ignored me.
I used to really like science, still follow it, but refuse to bow down to endless and biased assumptions.
Peace,
Ed
Are you speaking to persons or principles? Persons of science, as in all walks of life, do not always adhere to their principles. Many prominent scientists jump to hyperspace conclusions and publish their works, but it is “junk science” until it has been around the experimental track a few times and subject to formal peer review. The best that one can say is that the scientist has an educated guess. If one views your point from the perspective of speaking to persons, it is well taken. If one views CG1’s point from the perspective of speaking to principles, it too is well taken … IMO.The OP’s point is that in schools, just like here, we get: “It all happened by itself,” referring to how you and I got here. And then we have the useless God veneer thinly covering that “truth” just to make Christians think otherwise. A lawsuit was brought against a web site that used public dollars to promote this idea and quoted various religious ministers saying: “Hey, it’s OK.”
Keep God out of science class but don’t use His ministers as your excuse to reach those who don’t “get it.” I think the OP’s point is well proven.
Peace,
Ed
Well said, and I think in most cases we have to speak to principles when we are talking broadly. You can find “bad” people in every field. There are bad scientists, bad priests, bad teachers, etc, etc.Are you speaking to persons or principles? Persons of science, as in all walks of life, do not always adhere to their principles. Many prominent scientists jump to hyperspace conclusions and publish their works, but it is “junk science” until it has been around the experimental track a few times and subject to formal peer review. The best that one can say is that the scientist has an educated guess. If one views your point from the perspective of speaking to persons, it is well taken. If one views CG1’s point from the perspective of speaking to principles, it too is well taken … IMO.
Interesting that Father Spitzer who has unbelievable academic credentials earned at magnum cum laude levels has a piece that explores the “poured out for many / all” question of salvation, and comes up with the conclusion of “all”, to the contradiction of the change in Mass liturgy to “many” as a correction to “all”.If you can think critically you can take all of the information presented on a subject and determine what is likely true and what is likely false.
So, if a student notices a bias or false/philosophical conclusions coming from their science teacher, how does critical thinking turn into action?But the real question is, how widespread is this? Does it really constitute a mass problem or is it a few isolated incidents?
The second question is, what do you do about it? I think I have answered that, teach children critical thinking.
Have you read my posts ? The authorities I have used are not ordinary authorities, they are established Professionals, devoute Catholics, even three Popes ! And I have given you web sites to explore, which can be a source of needed materials. Critical thinking, by all means. But that alone will not be enough. Linus2ndIf someone takes everything they are told by a person in authority as being true, that is a perfect example of someone not taught to think critically.
On the same token, if someone disregards real findings because some people in the same field are biased, that is another perfect example of someone who has not been taught to think critically.
If you can think critically you can take all of the information presented on a subject and determine what is likely true and what is likely false.
Don’t understand what you are saying here. Can you clarify ? Linus2ndInteresting that Father Spitzer who has unbelievable academic credentials earned at magnum cum laude levels has a piece that explores the “poured out for many / all” question of salvation, and comes up with the conclusion of “all”, to the contradiction of the change in Mass liturgy to “many” as a correction to “all”.
Poured Out For Many
It is a perfect example of the need for an infallible Pope with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. A critical thinker would say that it is an obvious example of the Pope’s fallibility in the face of the critical thinking of Fr. Spitzer. It’s all a matter of perspective. I take the word of Jesus that puts the chair of Peter on a Rock solid basis, despite the fact that Peter has met his Peter Principle.
I’m trying to say that critical thinking is not enough. That is why Our Lord instituted his Church. The Peter Principle is the idea that persons get promoted until they reach their final position for which they are, alas, finally unqualified. Yet Our Lord instituted the Peter as the foundational Rock of our church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit (the infallibility factor). So you can take all the intelligent, educated, brilliant people to look at a problem, even with all the facts before them, and they will often still get it wrong. Take Humanae Vitae for instance. Pope Paul VI made that decision despite the consensus of all the best critical thinking in the church, and many couldn’t believe his response … so much so that many bishops actually stated they wouldn’t comply with the decision (Winnipeg Conference / Canada?). Yet, look how prophetic it looks in retrospect.Don’t understand what you are saying here. Can you clarify ? Linus2nd
I think your second point is incorrect. Human cloning is certainly in conflict with Church teaching, so is embryonic stem cell research…, just to name two examples. So one would have to say that the Church can certainly show science where not to go in its research. The same could be said in other fields but I don’t think it necessary to do that. Linus2ndBut 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.
Evolution and Atheism. So please don’t discuss them, it is not necessary. The O.P. can be discussed without reference to them. If you need an example, there are many others to choose from ( for example, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, in vetro fertilization, contraception, God created the universe in time out of nothing, God acts most intimately in his creation, maintaining its existence and guiding it to its proper end, man has a spiritual soul which will live eternally and this must be taken into account in sciences like sociology and psychology and psychiatry, etc.).What topics are banned? and Why?