Teaching evolution at a catholic school

[Dovekin]

Dovekin:

Do you know people who do not think soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones? What is the point of the question?

See the second quoted paragraph below for the point…

No, that is not the point.

Science types, who believe in evolution, think that soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones.
Creationists think that soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones (and use it as a sign dino bones are not that old).

So what is the point of asking if someone thinks soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones? Everybody will say yes.

 

[kwitz]

I’ve taught biology at a Catholic high school and when I did, I always had one of the theology teachers (an orthodox, dynamic gentleman) give the introductory lecture. Two things stand out from his presentation. One, he gave clear distinguishing characteristics of humans versus animals. Second, he emphasized that the “missing link” that connects animals to humans had to be God. God re-entered creation to breath into an animal and that animal became human. I always liked that explanation and how it makes science and theology valid.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Dovekin:

Do you know people who do not think soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones? What is the point of the question?

See the second quoted paragraph below for the point…

No, that is not the point.

Science types, who believe in evolution, think that soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones.
Creationists think that soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones (and use it as a sign dino bones are not that old).

So what is the point of asking if someone thinks soft tissue has been found in dinosaur bones? Everybody will say yes.

The relevant quote I mentioned was this:

“Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago.”

This is the whole box and dice. Those who are denying evolution are doing so because they read the bible as fundamentalists and consider the world to be just a few thousand years old (some will admit to that and some won’t).

Hence their claim that the evolutionary process, a process that encompasses literally billions of years, cannot have happened. Theybhave to bend and twist all facts and evidence to that end. They start with a young planet and then everything is determined on that basis.

 

[Rau]

Those who are denying evolution are doing so because they read the bible as fundamentalists and consider the world to be just a few thousand years old (some will admit to that and some won’t).

I suppose one could accept the universe and earth are billions of years old, but also accept ID. Except then, it would be rather mysterious why God bothered to have the material and life of the universe be so old.

But nevertheless, there is something in what you say. The proponents of ID on this forum have for example remarked to me in previous discussions that they do not accept carbon dating, reject the proposition that the Australian aborigines have been around for 40,000+ years, etc.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Those who are denying evolution are doing so because they read the bible as fundamentalists and consider the world to be just a few thousand years old (some will admit to that and some won’t).

I suppose one could accept the universe and earth are billions of years old, but also accept ID. Except then, it would be rather mysterious why God bothered to have the material and life of the universe be so old.

But nevertheless, there is something in what you say. The proponents of ID on this forum have for example remarked to me in previous discussions that they do not accept carbon dating, reject the proposition that the Australian aborigines have been around for 40,000+ years, etc.

I would rephrase that last sentence. It’s not that they don’t accept radiometric dating, 40,000 years of continuous inhabitation, continental drift etc. It’s that they have started with a belief that the world is just a few thousand years old and then cannot accept any science that contradicts that belief.

And the flavour of any month is evolution. Not geology or continental drift or archaeology but evolution. But they want some validity to their arguments. They need some credibility. Hence their reluctance to admit to a young earth. And their insistance that evolution can be disproved by science and ID proved the same way. But almost every single exhibit they bring up, every single spokesperson (except fellow young earth fundamentalists) hold to views that directly contradict theirs.

Denying evolution is a fool’s errand. At least as futile as proposing a flat earth. But promoting ID means you are then siding with people who have no problem with the actual age of the planet and have no problem with the facts of evolution either. They just want an ‘Intelligent Designer’ to be acknowledged. Which of course is never admitted to be God…

 

[rossum]

So then you are a molecules to man adherent with blind faith in the god of BUC.

No, I am Buddhist. I do not accept an overly literal interpretation of Christian scripture. Nor do I accept ID, because it has not yet shown a reliable and tested method of design detection.

Do You accept as fact soft tissue has been found in dino bones?

Mineralised fragments of collagen have been found in a few well preserved dinosaur bones.

Proponents of a young date need to explain why such bones are so rare, rather than being common. Proponents of an old date have to admit that they were wrong in their original estimates of how long collagen could survive in certain conditions.

I will go for a mistaken initial estimate of how long collagen could survive.

 

[Rau]

I would rephrase that last sentence. It’s not that they don’t accept radiometric dating, 40,000 years of continuous inhabitation, continental drift etc. It’s that they have started with a belief that the world is just a few thousand years old and then cannot accept any science that contradicts that belief.

Some CAF folks have sought to point to some evidentiary basis to reject geological dating findings. I don’t doubt they are driven to that on the basis that it would be in conflict with other beliefs.

And their insistance that evolution can be disproved by science and ID proved the same way.

At least with evolution/biology, as with particle physics, there seems to be an infinite pit of ever increasing complexity and mystery. It is unsurprising that one envisions a designer. I don’t doubt there is one, just not one who has conducted himself in the way some assert.

 

[rossum]

It is unsurprising that one envisions a designer. I don’t doubt there is one, just not one who has conducted himself in the way some assert.

I sometimes use the analogy of two pool players. One is an expert, she makes her shot and the cue ball follows exactly the path she planned, hits the other balls exactly as expected and gets the result she was aiming for with no further intervention.

The other pool player is not as good. He needs to intervene during the course of the shot, nudging the cue ball on its path, tilting the table, blowing on the other balls etc. He has to do all this in order to make his shot come out right.

The ID designer is like the second pool player, it needs to intervene during the course of the shot to make it come out right. It is because of that direct intervention that the ID designer is claimed to be detectable.

The Abrahamic God is like the first player. All the rules are set. The initial conditions are set. What need is there to intervene? Given the rules and the initial conditions, the outcome is already determined with no need for further intervention.

 

[o_mlly]

Godd … wrong.

I truncated your post to the first and last word because what’s in between is the usual straw man gibberish. In this edition of a “Fred’s Fantasy”, the word “you” occurs 12 times and still not 1 citation. Fred, why are you so frantic? You seem desperate.

Could it be you have an agenda here in Catholic Answers? Are you the enemy who sows weeds in the field of the Lord? Are we too skeptical if we suspect those who post at every thread and, in spite of having read the Catholic answer, continue to promote homosexual acts, direct abortions, contraception and other licentious behaviors are doing the devil’s work here? Perhaps the motivating force for such a person is feeling for a relative who is living a disordered lifestyle and, lacking the courage to confront the disorder in charity, wishes to affirm it instead.

Of course, to promote any immorality one must first get rid of God. “Godd … wrong.” Because without God, all things are possible. Is that why in this thread and others you erroneously attempt to tag anyone who questions the science of evolution theory as a religious fundamentalist? The issue is not religious; it’s the quality of the science. Science is always provisional and probabilistic. Science which infers rather than observes is all the more provisional and less probable. Evolution science is the latter.

 

[Freddy]

Is that why in this thread and others you erroneously attempt to tag anyone who questions the science of evolution theory as a religious fundamentalist?

I usually tag those who will not not confirm basic facts such as the age of the planet as fundamentalists.

It’s your call…

 

[whatistrue]

Whether you care to admit it or not, appropriate rigorous testing of BBT and the Theory of Evolution has been ongoing since their first promulgation as hypotheses and continues to this day. For details, see the peer-reviewed literature in the fields.

Can the same be said for ID?

 

[rossum]

Of course, to promote any immorality one must first get rid of God. “

Why? I have a perfectly serviceable Buddhist morality, and Buddhism ignores gods, including the Abrahamic God.

As Freddy points out, you have not yet answered the question: “How old is the Earth?”

We await you answer.

 

[o_mlly]

I usually tag those who will not not confirm basic facts such as the age of the planet …

Please read what is posted. The age of the earth is not a fact.

A fact is knowledge based on scientific evidence. The size, shape, location, color, are all features of an object that are measurable or quantifiable and cannot be easily disputed. An inference is a guess or idea based on the facts observed. There may be many different inferences based on the same observed fact .

 

[Freddy]

At least with evolution/biology, as with particle physics, there seems to be an infinite pit of ever increasing complexity and mystery. It is unsurprising that one envisions a designer. I don’t doubt there is one, just not one who has conducted himself in the way some assert.

Your position might be worth supporting if you were honest in your appraisal of those who ‘conduct themelves in the way that they assert’. Call it as you see it.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I usually tag those who will not not confirm basic facts such as the age of the planet …

Please read what is posted. The age of the earth is not a fact.

I’m sure we could tie it down to a rough estimate based on whatever evidence one would like to proffer.

Yours would be…?

 

[o_mlly]

I’m sure we could tie it down to a rough estimate based on whatever evidence one would like to proffer.

Yours would be…?

Start a new thread.

 

[buffalo]

The proponents of ID on this forum have for example remarked to me in previous discussions that they do not accept carbon dating,

Do you accept carbon dating as accurate for objects less than 50,000 years old?

 

[buffalo]

The other pool player is not as good. He needs to intervene during the course of the shot, nudging the cue ball on its path, tilting the table, blowing on the other balls etc. He has to do all this in order to make his shot come out right.

The ID designer is like the second pool player, it needs to intervene during the course of the shot to make it come out right. It is because of that direct intervention that the ID designer is claimed to be detectable.

Nope. God has allowed free will. In other words He allows humans to mess with the trajectory of the ball.

 

[buffalo]

At least with evolution/biology, as with particle physics, there seems to be an infinite pit of ever increasing complexity and mystery. It is unsurprising that one envisions a designer. I don’t doubt there is one, just not one who has conducted himself in the way some assert.

Dawkins himself recognizes design in biology. To still be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist” he has to fantasize about it just being an illusion. Many here follow that same line…

 

[o_mlly]

“How old is the Earth?”

We await you answer.

Off-topic. How do you think that question relates to this thread?

Is this legit catholic diocese approved teaching or do we have wolves in Shepard’s clothing?

Start a new thread.