Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[Arandur]

Science can only comment on externalities.

Now you’re admitting this? So what’s your problem? This comment implies that you accept the limitations of science, and thus you realize that anything beyond those limitations is not science at all, but philosophy. Thus the scientific description of “externalities” (natural laws and processes) can remain accurate and without conflict with the faith.

Intelligent Design is first and foremost about politics, not science.

I agree. ID is a political movement, not really a science.

Pope John Paul II recognized actual design in nature. This is denied to support an ideology.

Some people deny design to support an ideology. 2/3’s of scientists, as theists, don’t. Most believe the universe had to come into being somehow, and that it has such ordered processes tells us there was design behind the creation of those laws and processes.

The theory is independent of such materialistic philosophies as Positivism and Scientism. That’s why we classify such materialistic philosophies under their own terms (“Positivism,” “Scientism,” “Materialism,” “Existentialism”).

 

[edwest2]

Is there actual design in nature? Yes or no?

I am not referring to the political version of Intelligent Design.

Peace,
Ed

 

[M0nkey]

Brother Arandur, that the words in Genesis are strictly symbolic and bereft of any meaning is not what the Church has taught for centuries. We know these writings to the be the objective truth, not an argument, not merely metaphorical language but the words of life. To say that science trumps scripture in matters of Creation, Adam and Original Sin is a false dichotomy, these are not my opinions but the clear teachings of the Church. The argument I take issue with, is the idea of God’s creative restrictions our preconceptions place on His work. Is it possible for God to have created in an instant? I think the answer for most of us that are believers is that there is no doubt this is true. The evolutionary process so prevalent in the sciences today, however, do not even consider this possibility into account, further stripping God away from the necessity of a Creative Being.

Since you feel you’ve already thoroughly explained philosophy and science, I won’t go into that here. Obviously, I do not have the time nor the energy to keep up with all the posts on this thread.

As for the evidence; I think it is safe to say this is not infallible or any kind of fact. The similarities between species can only be attributed to that, similarities, not to some higher evolutionary process that would involve the work of the Creator, it is more poignant to look at the dissimilarities first before conjuring up any conclusions, which is the reason it can be argued to be another form of religion. To say that a human body has to evolve through time is to place God in box, and reduce Him to our hypothesis.

Finally, the laws surrounding mutability that is observed in different creatures is to be accounted for through reason. Theories that attempt to predict these changes are not necessarily looking at the long view of how systems came to be. And in my opinion they should NEVER attempt to do so, I think on this we can agree. But instead they should be looking at Intelligent Design, in other words, making some sense of why these things happen and where they come from, so we are better equipped to deal with and account for mutations in nature. Viral disease is an example of how understanding these changes can lead us to better diagnose how to treat diseases, this is merely an example and in no way supposing that this is where it would lead.

On a final note, can you explain to me what your view on evolution is? It seems you keep flip flopping in order to compensate for the truth.

 

[Arandur]

Is there actual design in nature? Yes or no?

YES. I don’t know how you haven’t gotten that by now.

In the words of Peter Kreeft, as I quoted in post #842 (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5346596&postcount=842):
“But doesn’t evolution explain everything without a divine Designer? J**ust the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. **There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex.”

Again, it would help if you actually paid attention to what I write.

 

[reggieM]

*There is very good scientific evidence for … beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. *

Interesting. You might want to explain this to Michaelo. Scientific evidence for design. I guess as long as we don’t call it Intelligent Design theory, everything is ok.

 

[edwest2]

YES. I don’t know how you haven’t gotten that by now.

In the words of Peter Kreeft, as I quoted in post #842 (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5346596&postcount=842):
“But doesn’t evolution explain everything without a divine Designer? J**ust the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. **There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex.”

Again, it would help if you actually paid attention to what I write.

Can you show me a scientific paper or article that acknowledges actual design in nature? You are promoting two things: science and what Peter Kreeft is saying. Does science support the idea that there is actual design in nature?

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Does science support the idea that there is actual design in nature?

Excellent question. Dr. Kreeft claims it does.

 

[Arandur]

Brother Arandur, that the words in Genesis are strictly symbolic and bereft of any meaning is not what the Church has taught for centuries.

Where did you possibly get that that’s what I was saying (really what the Church was saying, hence my quotations)? “Symbolic” does not mean “meaningless.”

To say that science trumps scripture in matters of Creation, Adam and Original Sin is a false dichotomy, these are not my opinions but the clear teachings of the Church.

The problem comes in with you suggesting that the Bible is a science textbook. The Bible gives us truth about God and His relationship with us. Science does not. The idea that God designed evolution for His purposes is consistent with the idea that He Created, and even shares many parallels to the two mythopoetic Creation stories in Genesis (now, please don’t fall into the common misconception that “myth” means “false;” it’s a description of a type of language and method of revealing concepts; in fact, “poetry” and “myth” as a form of symbolic “literary expression” were just how the Church referred to the Creation stories in the CCC and papal quotes I gave you).

The argument I take issue with, is the idea of God’s creative restrictions our preconceptions place on His work.

What restrictions? What preconceptions?

The only preconception here is your preconception that, apparently, an instantaneous creation is the only way God could have done it. You rule out the possibility of evolution or any similar process because apparently you believe that God COULDN’T have used it, or, by your personal preference, He SHOULDN’T have done it that way.

Is it possible for God to have created in an instant? I think the answer for most of us that are believers is that there is no doubt this is true.

I have always agreed and said yes, God COULD have created in an instant. What our study of His Creation tells us, though, is that it does not appear that He chose to do it that way. The evidence from His own Creation strongly suggests otherwise.

The evolutionary process so prevalent in the sciences today, however, do not even consider this possibility into account, further stripping God away from the necessity of a Creative Being.

Science started with a preconceived notion that the world was instantaneously created. It caused all sorts of debate when evidence was progressively found suggesting that the universe was much older, much larger, and spent much more time changing and developing into its current form. So you are totally wrong that science does “not even consider this possibility.” It DID. It found evidence in God’s own creation that this notion was not accurate, that instead the imprints God left in Creation told us something much different, much grander.

Since you feel you’ve already thoroughly explained philosophy and science, I won’t go into that here. Obviously, I do not have the time nor the energy to keep up with all the posts on this thread.

Just go back to those sources I kept providing. I even excerpted the most relevant parts for you. The full text is not much longer, only a page or two in total, unless you want to read all the details.

As for the evidence; I think it is safe to say this is not infallible or any kind of fact.

No science is infallible, but there IS observable fact. DNA makeup, optical shifts, radioactive properties, similarities among species, speciation within populations, etc.–all of these things have been observed. They are facts. How they are explained, how they fit together, how they make sense, is falsifiable theory. To the extent that it is not falsified, we derive greater certainty of it.

The similarities between species can only be attributed to that, similarities,

Similarities are just similarities? It just IS that way? No rhyme or reason?
I thought if there was evidence of design that design could be discovered and understood. The idea that we just let similarities lie and not try to find out “why” or “how” what we observe happened indicates a lack of wonder at God’s creation, a lack of desire to get to know Him.

not to some higher evolutionary process that would involve the work of the Creator,

What do you mean by this? I can’t make sense of this statement. My position is that God designed evolution.

it is more poignant to look at the dissimilarities first before conjuring up any conclusions, which is the reason it can be argued to be another form of religion.

If you think dissimilarities aren’t considered, you don’t understand much about how science is conducted.

To say that a human body has to evolve through time is to place God in box, and reduce Him to our hypothesis.

NO, to say that God could ONLY have immediately created the human body, no matter what evidence He has left us within His own creation, is to “place God in a box, and reduce Him to our hypothesis.”

It is the person willing to consider the evidence in God’s own creation that is open-minded, not the person who willfully ignores all other evidence and possibilities in favor of his own preconceived notions and personal interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Arandur]

Finally, the laws surrounding mutability that is observed in different creatures is to be accounted for through reason.

Yes, that’s what the biological theory of evolution does.

Theories that attempt to predict these changes are not necessarily looking at the long view of how systems came to be.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. Science attempts to understand a natural law or process, and finds an explanation to be accurate to the extent that it can predict and accommodate for natural events.

And in my opinion they should NEVER attempt to do so, I think on this we can agree.

I still don’t know what you’re trying to say. So science should never attempt to look backwards and figure out what happened in the past? Science shouldn’t try to explain speciation observed currently? Science shouldn’t attempt to predict what might happen to a species given certain changes in its environment?

But instead they should be looking at Intelligent Design, in other words, making some sense of why these things happen and where they come from, so we are better equipped to deal with and account for mutations in nature.

What? ID doesn’t try to make sense of why things happen or where they come from, evolution does. Read up on what ID practitioners have to say about their “discipline.” I gave you several links to this information. ID is about trying to attribute design to things, not trying to explain why something was designed a certain way or how it might act in the future.

Viral disease is an example of how understanding these changes can lead us to better diagnose how to treat diseases, this is merely an example and in no way supposing that this is where it would lead.

There’s a whole lot of evolutionary biology in medicine, in studying and treating viruses and bacterial infections! This is an argument FOR the accuracy and success of evolution, not against it!

On a final note, can you explain to me what your view on evolution is? It seems you keep flip flopping in order to compensate for the truth.

Show me a single time when I flip flopped.

I have told you my view of evolution time and time again, with complete consistency, and giving you explanations from popes, CAF, and Peter Kreeft that say the same thing, often in exactly the same words that I used prior to even finding those sources. You just seem unwilling to listen to what WE have to say.

Most simply put, I believe that God created the whole physical universe and designed evolution as one of its natural processes.

 

[Michaelo]

Interesting. You might want to explain this to Michaelo. Scientific evidence for design. I guess as long as we don’t call it Intelligent Design theory, everything is ok.

Let’s dissect that quote a little further. Kreeft states that scientific evidence exists for evolution. Prior to that, he says that evolution exemplifies design–a conclusion reached (if I understand him correctly) by another form of reasoning (philosophical) and not by evaluating scientific evidence. Please distinguish between the two assertions contained in that quote, but perhaps I’ve misinterpreted it.

 

[Arandur]

Can you show me a scientific paper or article that acknowledges actual design in nature? You are promoting two things: science and what Peter Kreeft is saying. Does science support the idea that there is actual design in nature?

There is no difference between what science is saying and what Peter Kreeft is saying. You are setting up a false dichotomy.

This is a philosophical question. If you ever read my sources on the definition and philosophy of science, you’d understand this.

You will never find in ANY discipline of science a scientific paper or article that includes as part of its rationale a necessary reliance on a supernatural explanation. It CANNOT. This is a limitation of science, and one that the Popes and the Catechism are clear in that they support!

I will AGAIN post the following:
"http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam…_Evolution.asp
"The Catholic Church has always taught that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18). “”

“Catechism 284:
“284 The great interest accorded to these studies [questions of ultimate origins and purpose] is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called “God”? And if the world does come from God’s wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?””

Dr. Kreeft claims it [science supports the idea of design] does.

Of course he does, as do I. He says science supports the philosophical/theological idea of design. Kreeft recognizes the limits of science, though you still do not.
Peter Kreeft:
““Insofar as evolution explains bodies, it does not contradict the doctrine of creation. Insofar as it claims to explain souls, it does. But it is unscientific and illogical to try to explain immaterial souls by material biology.
Insofar as evolution explains natural processes, it does not contradict the doctrine of creation. Insofar as it denies supernatural divine design, it does; but then evolution goes beyond its scientific scope and becomes theology instead of a natural science.””

You seem to want science to explicitly include God, to explicitly incorporate the Catholic faith. Yet the Popes and the Bishops who wrote the Catechism tell us explicitly that science should not do this. Why do you continue to go against the Church in your thought?

 

[edwest2]

1. There is no scientific evidence that evolution is connected to God. Got that?

The current version of evolution is a self-starting, self-operating engine that takes raw material, adds a random mutation and spits out life forms. If a life form happens to be in the right environment at the right time, it gets selected, if not, it doesn’t.

1. This bears no relationship to the direct, causal work of God, without which, according to Communion and Stewardship, evolution simply could not exist.

To the outside world, this is evolution:

You are just another animal.
You are the result of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have you in mind.
If we could rewind evolution, things would have turned out differently.

To anyone who says that God is connected to the kind of evolution I’ve just described, allow me to remind you that you are using the same type of “god did it” argument that is regularly rejected. This theory of evolution fits the atheist 100%. The Catholic perspective involves a direct, causal role for God. Therefore, “scientific” evolution is, maybe, partly descriptive of a process that involves significantly more than what is contained in the biology textbook. Therefore, to quote Pope Benedict, “But it also true that evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

You say I go against the Church. Even the Pope found the necessity to say “we must have the audacity” in response to false questions like this.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p81.htm

Pope Benedict XVI

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

---

Even the Pope had to address the nonsensical idea that we are the product of haphazard mistakes

Peace,
Ed

 

[M0nkey]

It is the person willing to consider the evidence in God’s own creation that is open-minded, not the person who willfully ignores all other evidence and possibilities in favor of his own preconceived notions and personal interpretation of Scripture.

Let’s go back for a minute, do you believe science to be compatible with holy scripture? In other words, what role does scripture play when it comes to science. I have gone back to read some of your quotes, it seems you are selectively pointing out whatever quotes you can find to back up your claims. I would read the work holistically, read the scriptures and ask God to enlighten your mind about these issues.

 

[M0nkey]

ID is about trying to attribute design to things, not trying to explain why something was designed a certain way or how it might act in the future.

What? If it’s “trying to attribute design to things” how can it not possibly “explain why something was designed a certain way”? This is self-defeating, once you know the design, you know the way it will behave.

Show me a single time when I flip flopped.

I may not follow you correctly, but it seems you once were fine with the idea that evolution isn’t the only explanation, now you seem to present it as fact. Can’t really prove it, it just seems you have flopped.

 

[reggieM]

Peter Kreeft: Just the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex."

According to him, evolution is a beautiful example of design. Why? Because design is something “ordered”, as he says. Science proves that there is design in nature because “there is good scientific evidence for the evolving, **ordered **appearance of species”.

There is scientific evidence for “order”. Design equals order (for him). Thus, there is scientific evidence for design.

Here are some of the objections that can be expected (did I miss any?):

1. When he says that evolution is an example of design, he is speaking philosophically. When he says that there is “very good scientific evidence” for the “order” that indicates design, he is speaking about philosophical evidence, not scientific. Even though he explicitly said “very good scientific evidence” that’s not what it means. It actually means “very good philosophical evidence” and it’s amazing that someone would claim that he meant “scientific” (when he clearly meant “philosophical”).
2. He might “think” he observes design but it’s really an illusion – it’s not really there.
3. Science didn’t give very good evidence that evolution was designed because it’s not really ordered, even though he said that there was very good scientific evidence that it is ordered/designed.
4. Design doesn’t mean what Professor Kreeft defined it as. Nobody could ever know the meaning of what design is, even though he claimed that there is good evidence of design in nature.
5. He defined design as something (ordered appearance) and then said science gives evidence that design exists. But he cannot define things and seek evidence for them. Scientists do use philosophy to define what homology, or relationship or phylogeny means and then seek evidence for those things – but that is different.
6. Professor Kreeft is not a scientist, so its hard to know what he’s talking about.
7. He could be hallucinating when he says he sees design – it’s not really there.
8. Nobody can know what design is – it doesn’t exist.
9. I can observe order and design as an objective, empirical value (versus chaos), but science cannot measure objective, empirically detected things. Even though he claims to see scientific evidence of design (in the ordered appearance, large to small), it is not possible to use science to obtain evidence on order/design.
10. I think it looks like design, but that’s just my own opinion and I can’t defend it.
    By faith, I imagine that there is order and design there, but I’m really imagining it (even though the Church teaches infallibly that I can observe design in nature).
11. I agree that there is order and design, but it really doesn’t exist. I’d like to think it is there, and other people can see it also, but science cannot evaluate what we see. Mathematics can prove design in the cosmos by measuring precision, symmetry and cooperating forces (which are impossible to produce by randomness and physical laws), but that is different than looking at other parts of nature. Science cannot talk about those things.
12. Yes, I can observe design in nature. Prof. Kreeft is saying that science can evaluate various things (but not order and design) and then I see design in nature, but science cannot analyze design because design is a philosophical concept that has nothing to do with observed nature.
13. A pile of rocks exhibits design. Design is everywhere. There is no need for science to prove this (even though Professor Kreeft said that there is “very good evidence” of order/design).
14. Evolution shows design. So does a confetti in a wind-storm. That produces order also.
15. Design is a philosophical concept that cannot have any real meaning.
16. The claim that science can detect design or plan in nature means that science must be talking about God – and science cannot talk about God. So, science cannot give evidence of design in nature.
17. Forensics scientifically seeks clues for plan-design-intent in the physical environment. It can give “good evidence” for design in nature (finding fingerprints, etc) through scientific means. Professor Kreeft also talked about “clues”. But that doesn’t mean the same thing because science cannot talk about design or about God.
18. Language is a highly ordered form of design. SETI researchers use science to seek to observe the design of language in nature. They seek an “ordered appearance” which indicates design – just as Professort Kreeft said. But SETI is looking for alien life and that is different because science cannot observe design in nature and science cannot speak about God.

 

[Michaelo]

There is scientific evidence for “order”. Design equals order (for him). Thus, there is scientific evidence for design.

But doesn’t “order implies design” rely on philosophical reasoning? Despite the fact that scientific evidence is considered, alternative reasoning appears to be necessary to make this connection. This is what I was trying to point out earlier.

 

[reggieM]

But doesn’t “order implies design” rely on philosophical reasoning? Despite the fact that scientific evidence is considered, alternative reasoning appears to be necessary to make this connection. This is what I was trying to point out earlier.

Don’t the terms: “common ancestor”, “homology”, “natural selection”, “speciation”, “convergent evolution”, “scientific method” and “methodological naturalism” rely on philosophical reasoning? (of course they do – they’re philosophical concepts that science uses as tools or as things to prove).

It’s the same with the term “design”. It’s a concept. It can be defined. It can be observed. Science can show evidence for it – just as Dr. Kreeft stated explicitly and clearly.

 

[Michaelo]

It’s the same with the term “design”. It’s a concept. It can be defined. It can be observed. Science can show evidence for it – just as Dr. Kreeft stated explicitly and clearly.

Order may be observed, but can you help me out with using scientific reasoning to link it with design?

 

[reggieM]

Order may be observed, but can you help me out with using scientific reasoning to link it with design?

I will use Dr. Kreeft’s view because that is what Arandur accepts. There are many other definitions of design. Let’s look again:

Peter Kreeft: Just the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex."

The “ordered appearance” is a “beautiful example of design”. So, design equals order. That is like saying “the term species means …” whatever the definition. Or something like “convergent evolution means …” the definition comes from philosophy, not science. It’s a philosophical concept that science sets out to prove. Design equals “order” – according to Dr. Kreeft. Design is defined by something (he chooses order). Design is a concept - it has meaning. He defines it, like any other term used in science. Then he seeks scientific evidence for it (ordered appearance) and says that there is very good scientific evidence for design (which is defined by “order”).
It’s like saying that there is good evidence for the existence of “species” in nature. Species has a definition. It’s a philosophical concept (you can’t find the definition in nature – you have to create it).

Let’s look at this post from Dr. Kreeft again (which I posted twice and commented on in post 522 in this thread – you might want to look at that again).

Peter Kreeft – Handbook of Christian Apologetics page 5
5. The Design Argument
This sort of argument is of wide and perennial appeal. Almost everyone admits that reflection on the order and beauty of nature touches something very deep within us. But are the **order **and beauty of **the product of intelligent design **and conscious purpose? For theists the answer is yes. Arguments for design are attempts to vindicate this answer; to show why it is the most reasonable one to give. They have been formulated in ways as richly varied as the experience in which they are rooted. The following displays the core or central insight.

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say **the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order **and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)
2. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
3. Not chance.
4. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
5. Design comes only from a mind, a designer.

Please review that text and comment on what Dr. Kreeft says – not on what you think “Intelligent Design Theory” is, or not attacking me, or not attacking creationism – but just look at that text, evaluate it calmly and recognize what it says.

Notice, he points to “the organs in the body” as an example of “order and regularity”.

What does “order and regularity indicate?” Answer: “Intelligent Design”.

Can science evaluate order (which equals design for him)? Yes. There is “There is **very good scientific evidence **for the evolving, ordered appearance of species.”

There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, **ordered appearance **of species

Look at numbers 2,3 & 4 again:

1. Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
2. Not chance.
3. Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.

You’ve argued incorrectly several times that this is “negative evidence”.
That is not correct. Something is either designed or it is not.

There is no other option.

That is the claim. There is no other option besides designed or not-designed (unplanned).

To refute that claim, all you have to do is come up with another option. It’s either designed, not-designed or … whatever else you want. Peter Kreeft states categorically that it originated by chance or by design. If you eliminate chance – it necessarily proves design.

That’s his claim. That’s my claim.

Again, to prove that wrong – provide another option. It is not my task to provide other options since I claimed that there are none.

Atheistic-physicists, Leonard Susskind, who wrote an entire book attacking Intelligent Design theory stated clearly that if it cannot be shown that something could be produced by chance, random processes – then this necessarily proves intelligent design.

 

[M0nkey]

Michaelo, as a Catholic Christian I do not understand your hostility towards design. You have mentioned truth cannot contradict truth, well, God is the truth. Every scientific endeavor needs to start with the truth and conform itself to that ultimate Reality. To separate theology/philosophy from science is to deny the presence of truth in science. Like you have said, truth must be deeply rooted in truth. I hope you begin to realize that any scientific endeavor is ultimately probing into the Mind and therefore it’s essentially a theological/ontological study. I take it you’ve had a secular upbringing when it comes to education and that is what is influencing your current thinking. But a wholesome Catholic education needs to start with the words of scripture and that great exemplar which is Christ our Lord. That the child “Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men.” Lk 2:52