Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[reggieM]

Not in science class, but perhaps in religious studies, philosophy, etc.

I think the problem here is that you may be denying that the attributes of God can be seen (empirically) in His works.

You accept that God Intelligently Designed the physical laws of the universe. But if you believe that upon zero evidence, that is the heresy fideism.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Church has condemned such doctrines. In 1348, the Holy See proscribed certain fideistic propositions of Nicholas d’Autrecourt (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10th ed., nn. 553-570). In his two Encyclicals, one of September, 1832, and the other of July, 1834, Gregory XVI condemned the political and philosophical ideas of Lamenais. On 8 September, 1840, Bautain was required to subscribe to several propositions directly opposed to Fideism, the first and the fifth of which read as follows: “Human reason is able to prove with certitude the existence of God; faith, a heavenly gift, is posterior to revelation, and therefore cannot be properly used against the atheist to prove the existence of God”; and “The use of reason precedes faith and, with the help of revelation and grace, leads to it.” The same proposition were subscribed to by Bonnetty on 11 June, 1855 (cf. Denzinger, nn. 1650-1652). In his Letter of 11 December, 1862, to the Archbishop of Munich, Pius IX, while condemning Frohschammer’s naturalism, affirms the ability of human reason to reach certitude concerning the fundamental truths of the moral and religious order (cf. Denzinger, 1666-1676). And, finally, the Vatican Council teaches as a dogma of Catholic faith that “one true God and Lord can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made” (Const., De Fide Catholicâ", Sess. III, can. i, De Revelatione; cf. Granderath, “Constitutiones dogmaticae Conc. Vatic.”, Freiburg, 1892, p. 32 cf. Denzinger, n. 1806).

If, however, you accept that Design can be observed in nature (through sensory perception and the use of reason), then why is this not the proper subject of science?

 

[RACJ]

You don’t have to explicitly reference God in science to accept that it is revealed Truth.

Not in science class, but perhaps in religious studies, philosophy, etc.

No, Michaelo, the message that comes through loud and clear is that “God” is for those who are too weak to accept science as the end-all. I’m not going to be intimidated by those who insist on separate spheres. The idea that we are nothing more than creatures formed at random from primordial “soup” and ultimately, single-celled paramecia is utterly foolish, IMO, AND unsubstantiated, obviously. Rob

 

[Michaelo]

Oh so hide God. Keep in mind theology is considered the highest of sciences, all other disciplines then take root from there. To the early scientists, broadening knowledge was considered mostly a theological endeavor, I suspect things have not changed much since.

To clarify, I’m referring to empirical science, which is taught in science class. The metaphysical cannot be referenced here.

You accept that God Intelligently Designed the physical laws of the universe. But if you believe that upon zero evidence.

Right, I believe that God is responsible for the physical laws. That is a faith based claim that doesn’t require scientific evidence.

If, however, you accept that Design can be observed in nature (through sensory perception and the use of reason), then why is this not the proper subject of science?

I’ve already gone over this. You cannot attribute it to God via the scientific method.

No, Michaelo, the message that comes through loud and clear is that “God” is for those who are too weak to accept science as the end-all. I’m not going to be intimidated by those who insist on separate spheres. The idea that we are nothing more than creatures formed at random from primordial “soup” and ultimately, single-celled paramecia is utterly foolish, IMO, AND unsubstantiated, obviously. Rob

Not at all, you are putting words in my mouth. God belongs in theology, philosophy, etc. class because empirical science cannot address the metaphysical.

 

[buffalo]

To clarify, I’m referring to empirical science, which is taught in science class. The metaphysical cannot be referenced here.

Right, I believe that God is responsible for the physical laws. That is a faith based claim that doesn’t require scientific evidence.

I’ve already gone over this. You cannot attribute it to God via the scientific method.

Not at all, you are putting words in my mouth. God belongs in theology, philosophy, etc. class because empirical science cannot address the metaphysical.

Of course theology is the highest form of science aka the Divine Science. If we are really interested in teaching our children truth we should rule out teaching them certain truths. At the very least educate them on how to arrive at the truth.

 

[M0nkey]

I’ve already gone over this. You cannot attribute it to God via the scientific method.

You sure can! There is no scientific method if there is no God. See, simple. You seem to think in schizophrenic realities, the truth is there is but one reality, properly sourced in God.

 

[Michaelo]

Of course theology is the highest form of science aka the Divine Science. If we are really interested in teaching our children truth we should rule out teaching them certain truths. At the very least educate them on how to arrive at the truth.

And this doesn’t require mentioning God in a class involving empirical science. Why is this so hard to grasp?

You sure can! There is no scientific method if there is no God. See, simple. You seem to think in schizophrenic realities, the truth is there is but one reality, properly sourced in God.

No, you cannot attribute the origin of various natural phenomena to God via the scientific method. Once again, one must use theology to understand what is revealed truth.

 

[buffalo]

And this doesn’t require mentioning God in a class involving empirical science. Why is this so hard to grasp?

No, you cannot attribute the origin of various natural phenomena to God via the scientific method. Once again, one must use theology to understand what is revealed truth.

I ask the question again. Are interested in teaching or kids the whole truth or just a little bit of it.

 

[Michaelo]

I ask the question again. Are interested in teaching or kids the whole truth or just a little bit of it.

In Catholic schools, I want the students to learn the whole truth–implicitly in science class and explicitly in theology class.

 

[reggieM]

In Catholic schools, I want the students to learn the whole truth–implicitly in science class and explicitly in theology class.

You would forbid Catholic teachers from mentioning God’s power in science class when teaching Catholic students in Catholic schools?

 

[Michaelo]

You would forbid Catholic teachers from mentioning God’s power in science class when teaching Catholic students in Catholic schools?

Again, the metaphysical does not belong in a science class centered around the scientific method.

 

[buffalo]

In Catholic schools, I want the students to learn the whole truth–implicitly in science class and explicitly in theology class.

So why should Catholic schools be the only ones to teach the whole truth. Is this the best for our kids?

 

[Michaelo]

So why should Catholic schools be the only ones to teach the whole truth. Is this the best for our kids?

I don’t think that religious education (specifically regarding truth according to our Catholic faith) should be mandatory for public school students. That’s what private Catholic schools are for.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t think that religious education (specifically regarding truth according to our Catholic faith) should be mandatory for public school students. That’s what private Catholic schools are for.

So public school children are discriminated against.

 

[Michaelo]

So public school children are discriminated against.

No, it’s a matter of not discriminating against other religions. Members of other faiths may justifiably complain that their truths are not being equally represented in public schools. We can avoid this predicament by reserving religious education for private schools.

 

[buffalo]

No, it’s a matter of not discriminating against other religions. Members of other faiths may justifiably complain that their truths are not being equally represented in public schools. We can avoid this predicament by reserving religious education for private schools.

Is your claim that all truths are equal? Is your claim we cannot arrive with certainty at the truth?

 

[Michaelo]

Is your claim that all truths are equal? Is your claim we cannot arrive with certainty at the truth?

So, if I understand the implications of your posts correctly, you think that Catholic education should be mandatory for all public school students?

 

[reggieM]

Again, the metaphysical does not belong in a science class centered around the scientific method.

So, you would forbid Catholic religious to open the class with a prayer and force them to remove crucifixes from the walls of science classes.

Sounds like you’d be mandating an atheistic approach, even in Catholic schools.

 

[RACJ]

Not at all, you are putting words in my mouth. God belongs in theology, philosophy, etc. class because empirical science cannot address the metaphysical.

 What I find infuriating is that biology classes cannot admit the possibility that organisms have an obvious *design*. It's like the emperor with no clothes story. I refuse to pretend that there is no direction and design in life, even in science class.
 And my response to those who say that a God *chose* to design humans and every other life form, through a macro-evolutionary process from paramecia (which in themselves are miraculous), *prove* it, or don't teach it to impressionable children. Rob :)

 

[buffalo]

So, if I understand the implications of your posts correctly, you think that Catholic education should be mandatory for all public school students?

I am Catholic. I believe we have the fullness of truth. All students should have access to the fullness of truth.

Now politically this is a problem, so we dumb it down. That is disservice. That being said, the realities of education severely limit this. I propose the following:

1. Empirical science in the science classroom only.
2. Mandatory philosophy and metaphysics classes

This would at least teach students how to pursue the truth rather than just swallowing what the public system feeds them.

 

[Michaelo]

So, you would forbid Catholic religious to open the class with a prayer and force them to remove crucifixes from the walls of science classes.

Sounds like you’d be mandating an atheistic approach, even in Catholic schools.

Wow, now you’re putting words in my mouth. I thought it was implied that I meant no references to God in the science class curriculum.

 What I find infuriating is that biology classes cannot admit the possibility that organisms have an obvious *design*. It's like the emperor with no clothes story. I refuse to pretend that there is no direction and design in life, even in science class.

Discussions on God designing creation should be reserved for theology class, but this doesn’t diminish the significance of the topic.

And my response to those who say that a God chose to design humans and every other life form, through a macro-evolutionary process from paramecia (which in themselves are miraculous), prove it, or don’t teach it to impressionable children. Rob

I would sure hope that science teachers aren’t making this claim as it is not appropriate for their classes.

1. Empirical science in the science classroom only.
2. Mandatory philosophy and metaphysics classes

This would at least teach students how to pursue the truth rather than just swallowing what the public system feeds them.

That’s definitely an interesting proposition, and I’m glad that you made the important distinction between science and philosophy class.