The dangers of creationism in education

[Metaron]

In the Catholic religion the host is transformed into the body of Christ. In science the host remains unleavened wheat. Both statements are true because science and religion use different sources of truth, scripture and the material world respectively.

rossum

No, the “scientific” view is not true. It is the Body of Christ in the accident (the appearance) of bread. Your view seems to be the view of transignification, which has been outlawed by the Church as heresy. You forget that scientists, their theories (The laughable Macro-Evolution Theory or the Hopeful-Monster Theory), and even some things they consider “facts” (that we arose from primordial slime) are fallible. Only the Church and the Scriptures are infallible.

 

[rossum]

No, the “scientific” view is not true. It is the Body of Christ in the accident (the appearance) of bread. Your view seems to be the view of transignification, which has been outlawed by the Church as heresy.

If you look at my profile you will see that I am Buddhist; my views differ from those of the Church on many things. As to the truth, science only deals with “accident”, not “substance”. In scientific terms the accident is precisely the same as it was - all science can talk about is the accident. Science does not recognise Thomist “substance”. Are you proposing that there is a scientific experiment that could be used to show the effects of transubstantiation? Surely the Catholic Church would be publicising such an experiment for all it was worth.

Only the Church and the Scriptures are infallible.

Which church (there are many) and which scriptures (there are many)?

“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“Sorrowful are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

(Dhammapada 20 vv 5-7)

rossum

 

[peary]

**First, it’s nice that you have come into these forums as a Buddhist. Welcome.

For a Christian, the Faith we receive from God is a gift. It is a grace. We cannot ‘make’ Faith; we cannot ‘do’ Faith. Faith in Jesus Christ as the only Son of God and God Himself is what I am referring to here, and that Christ founded a society of believers on earth (the Church) which reveals what is True. Therefore, for Catholic Christians, Truth is not relative but objective and eternal. To a Catholic Christian, Christianity basis and foundation is that of revealed Truth from God to humankind through Christ and His Church.**

Which church (there are many) and which scriptures (there are many)?

You are in a Catholic forum. The Church being referred to here is the Catholic Church. The Scriptures being referred to here is the Church’s Scriptures - the Bible.

Our Faith (and Scripture) teaches us that the risen Christ is wholely present in the bread and wine - body, blood, soul and divinity. The Eucharist for us is not a symbol of this, or that Christ is only ‘spiritually’ present (whatever that means), but that He is truly there, and that the bread and wine actually become Him as that is His gift to us. The Church calls this ‘transubstantiation’. It’s a big word, but it clarifies our Faith and belief from Christian denominations who are not Catholic.

rossum

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What a hysterical manifesto. Why are evolutionists always so paranoid?

rotfl:

There is nothing hysterical about the truth. What is hysterical is how a mind can split in two and still operate.

Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, posted a response in his personal Web site on Monday, stating that the resolution is indicative of an increasingly secularizing society.

“When the official human rights institution of Europe has to explain that ‘some people’ believe that the divine creation of the universe ‘gives a meaning to life,’ this can only mean that Europe (at least as represented by the Council of Europe) has forgotten even its Christian memory,” wrote Mohler, who often appears on “Larry King Live” and other popular news shows representing the Christian voice.

…

Furthermore, the Baptist leader challenged the report to provide evidence of its claim that some advocates of creationism “are out to replace democracy by theocracy.”

“The group claims that such knowledge ‘has been exposed on several occasions’ but fails to mention even one such occasion,” stated Mohler.

While the resolution describes creationism as “an almost exclusively American phenomenon” but that some of its tenets were “tending to find their way into Europe,” Mohler noted a greater shift at work.

“The Council of Europe’s resolution is clear evidence of the fact that a secularized society desperately needs naturalistic evolution as the metaphysical foundation of its worldview,” he stated.

“Any threat to evolution is seen as a threat to democracy and human rights — and democracy and human rights are understood in an entirely secular framework as well.”

The Christian Post

Umm…we are not baptists. Apparently you are. Catholics do not follow the doctrine of sola scriptura and creationism that is proposed by certain ultra right fundamentalist groups.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I know; the only way they can convince me that macro-evolution is true and literal creationism is not is if the Catholic Church says it is no longer a view to be held. But I don’t think that will ever happen; their simply is too much in favour of Creationism. See my thread in philosophy, Creationism an Option?.

Well the Church certainly says that that is the stance it personally takes, so you want what a declaration of infallibility? What tradition are you coming from that you seem to need this fundamentalist approach? And I think you are off to a bad start here if you think that you will just believe what the Church tells you. How first of all can you force yourself to believe what you clearly don’t? And second, you might want to look at your responsibilty to your own well-formed conscience, if indeed it is so.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The bottom line is creationism predicts nothing and is not open to experimentation. It is a theological argument, not a scientific one. I agree with the OP completely. It’s hard to be lumped with radical islam on this issue, but lumped with them you are creationists. I have certainly read elsewhere that this is an American phenomenon. Many scholars are now speaking out on this and many other fundamentalist claims that are not at all based on reality but some desire for the world to conform to personal needs. Dr. Eliz. Schussler Fiorenza speaks eloquently of the damage done by fundamentalists to women in this adherence to kyriocentric models of viewing the world. Such views continue to marginalize vast groups within the landscape.

Thankfully, there is no discussion of this silliness at the professional levels of discourse about the bible or theology. It’s a mighty dose of reality. It’s embarassing to come here and find such backward fundie thinking in a Catholic setting.

 

[Kaninchen]

While ‘creationism’ is a non-problem in Europe, the roots of the OP declaration are interesting - and they’re not really to do with the whole American creationist row.

It all started because of an Islamic creationist book that was being distributed and used in European Muslim schools. The book had its origins in Turkey, which is a permanent candidate for EU membership and I guess the declaration is part of a whole range of lines that it’s perceived will need to be drawn before accession.

 

[TNT]

Here’s the bottom line:
First the self-evident both agree on:
It is self-evident that nothing comes from absolutely nothing.

Secular Evolutionism is built on Faith:
You cannot stop at the big-bang idea. You have to prove WHAT was “banged”.
From this can only come the absolute eternal past existence of matter. An Article of Faith, which dips right into religon’s sphere.

Creationism is built on Faith:
The absolute eternal past existence of immaterial Intellect that produced from nothing, the matter required for the “bang” idea to ever occur.

Neither of these Articles of Faith can be proven empirically, that is why they are Articles of Faith.

For this reason, It is Science that steps into the metaphysical or religious realm, not the other way around by founding a scientific theory on Faith…the absolute eternal past existence of matter.
In this way the fact becomes:
"The dangers of evolutionISM in Religion."

Remember, a tenet of liberal argumentation is to accuse the other side what you yourself are engaged in.

 

[TNT]

While ‘creationism’ is a non-problem in Europe, the roots of the OP declaration are interesting - and they’re not really to do with the whole American creationist row.

It all started because of an Islamic creationist book that was being distributed and used in European Muslim schools. The book had its origins in Turkey, which is a permanent candidate for EU membership and I guess the declaration is part of a whole range of lines that it’s perceived will need to be drawn before accession.

Very revealing!
Because in fact, the real threat to the european existence is the migration of Islamic mindset into the european culture. (Where there is a vacuum it will be filled.).
Just as Europe has a vacuum of new life, so it will be filled by the Islamic birth rate in Europe.
The Die is Cast. What’s left of the European culture & governance will be replaced by the Islamic culture in less than 2 more 40-year generations.
It will first surprise the average European that an entire large Euro City will vote in Islamic administration. It will then be approved as the great advance of multiculturalism by the EU leaders which itself, will shortly thereafter end up being taken over by the Islamic governance as well.

From there the dam breaks and Europe is drowned by Islamic culture…too late to change it with the current Euro mentality and birth rate vacuum.
It then will not matter what they think about evolution in education. It will be outlawed in mere 100 years.

.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

A book that no YEC has yet to respond to is,

Fallacies of Creationism by Willard Young

Fallacies of Creationism shows that an uncritical acceptance of Creationist anti-evolution propaganda could post a serious threat to the integrity of Science, and exposes the many errors in reasoning and “scientific fact” on which creationist teaching is based. The book begins by outlining the historical roots of Creationism and the concerns which keep it alive even today. It shows that Scientific Creationism is founded squarely on a literal interpretation of the Genesis story of creation, and that the Creationists simply twist science around to fit their preconceived religious beliefs. This book explains what evolution is, what science is, and why “Creation Science” is not science. It explicitly refutes many of the Creationists’ so-called “scientific” arguments against evolution including those arguments based on the gaps in the fossil record, a young age for the earth and the universe, and the constancy of the laws of nature. The Creationists’ “strong” arguments based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the astronomical probabilities against a naturalistic origin of life receive special attention, and this study demolishes them. Fallacies of Creationism provides the creation-evolution controversy a clear critique of Creationism pseudoscience. The book is a rich source of information on the origin, motivation, and tactics of the modern Creationist movement.

amazon.com/Fallacies-Creationism-Willard-Young/dp/0920490530

 

[TNT]

Ok Daniel:
…modern Creationist movement.
If this MODERN movement is based on Genesis, How in the world can it be “MODERN”?
Creationist culture is 1000’s of years old. Secular Evolution is what is MODERN. It’s the new kid on the block, not the other way around.
BTW, This socalled YEC is not held by all creationists by any measure. There is plenty of room for VOE in the first 4 verses of Gen.
.
Now my question to you as you source your favorite book:

1. Is matter absolutely eternal? That includes “energy”, BTW.?
   Or:
2. Did something come from absolutely nothing?
   OR:
3. This root subject was skipped over entirely.

You need only post “1” or “2” or “3” followed by any additions from you or the book.

 

[lhagan]

Daniel Marsh

True science defines the word of God.

 

[peary]

Very revealing!
Because in fact, the real threat to the european existence is the migration of Islamic mindset into the european culture. (Where there is a vacuum it will be filled.).
Just as Europe has a vacuum of new life, so it will be filled by the Islamic birth rate in Europe.
The Die is Cast. What’s left of the European culture & governance will be replaced by the Islamic culture in less than 2 more 40-year generations.
It will first surprise the average European that an entire large Euro City will vote in Islamic administration. It will then be approved as the great advance of multiculturalism by the EU leaders which itself, will shortly thereafter end up being taken over by the Islamic governance as well.

From there the dam breaks and Europe is drowned by Islamic culture…too late to change it with the current Euro mentality and birth rate vacuum.
It then will not matter what they think about evolution in education. It will be outlawed in mere 100 years.

.

**I think God has other plans for Europe, and it’s not Islam. **

 

[peary]

Daniel Marsh

True science defines the word of God.

No, it does not. The bible is NOT a scientific treatise. It portrays a cosmology that very early civilizations embraced, which is not the same as science. The Word of God is never depenedent on Science; you have it backwards.

 

[lhagan]

No, it does not. The bible is NOT a scientific treatise. It portrays a cosmology that very early civilizations embraced, which is not the same as science. The Word of God is never depenedent on Science; you have it backwards.

That sentence is interpreted as follows: Science can only verify God’s word with scientific data. Science can not debunk God’s words.

Is English not your first language?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Here’s the bottom line:
First the self-evident both agree on:
It is self-evident that nothing comes from absolutely nothing.

**so you assume God cannot create out of nothing? **

Secular Evolutionism is built on Faith:
You cannot stop at the big-bang idea. You have to prove WHAT was “banged”.
From this can only come the absolute eternal past existence of matter. An Article of Faith, which dips right into religon’s sphere.
**This is fallacious. One need not prove what caused the singularity to “explode” to show that evolutionary theory has been adequately proven. Many consider the human genome project more than enough proof on its own that evolution was the method chosen by God to evolve life. **

Creationism is built on Faith:
The absolute eternal past existence of immaterial Intellect that produced from nothing, the matter required for the “bang” idea to ever occur.

**So you do believe that God could have created out of nothing then? **

Neither of these Articles of Faith can be proven empirically, that is why they are Articles of Faith.

For this reason, It is Science that steps into the metaphysical or religious realm, not the other way around by founding a scientific theory on Faith…the absolute eternal past existence of matter.

**That’s irrational. Since creationism is a matter of faith, Science cannot report its findings of fact which may impact this matter of faith? Faith in the guise of a small segment of Catholicism, now attempts to offset these facts by forcing a matter of faith as an alternative? **
In this way the fact becomes:
"The dangers of evolutionISM in Religion."

Remember, a tenet of liberal argumentation is to accuse the other side what you yourself are engaged in.

Yep, I think you should listen to yourself.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That sentence is interpreted as follows: Science can only verify God’s word with scientific data. Science can not debunk God’s words.

Is English not your first language?

You’re missing the point. It’s not God’s word. It’s the collected remembrance of old old oral stories that were told for millenia and then set to writing during the babylonian exile. Even Pope JPII says as much in his theology of the body. He takes the two creation stories separately, talks about their respective authors, and their respective ages. The Catholic church teaches no such doctrin of Creation as being a scientific explanation for the creation of the universe and earth.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Ok Daniel:
…modern Creationist movement.
If this MODERN movement is based on Genesis, How in the world can it be “MODERN”?
**Because its become a resurgent argument in the past few years. Fundamentalism has risen world wide if you hadn’t noticed. It psst…9/11 remember…they too were fundamentalists…BTW …radical islam also believes in a literal interepretation of genesis. **

BTW, This socalled YEC is not held by all creationists by any measure. There is plenty of room for VOE in the first 4 verses of Gen.

**VOE? what is that? variety of evolution? **
.
Now my question to you as you source your favorite book:

1. Is matter absolutely eternal? That includes “energy”, BTW.?
   Or:
2. Did something come from absolutely nothing?
   OR:
3. This root subject was skipped over entirely.

You need only post “1” or “2” or “3” followed by any additions from you or the book.

This is pretty much nonsensical.

 

[Kaninchen]

Just as Europe has a vacuum of new life, so it will be filled by the Islamic birth rate in Europe.

Ah, the old Muslims breeding for victory myth. By far (enormously) the most immigration to Western Europe is from Eastern Europe.

It will first surprise the average European that an entire large Euro City will vote in Islamic administration. It will then be approved as the great advance of multiculturalism by the EU leaders which itself, will shortly thereafter end up being taken over by the Islamic governance as well.

Ah, so a Mexican United States will have to deal with an Islamic Europe (or whatever apocalyptic vision one likes to come up with).

 

[Metaron]

Well the Church certainly says that that is the stance it personally takes, so you want what a declaration of infallibility?

The Church is not considered to endorse anything, except that which it deems an infallible truth. Just a majority of clergy and laity favour it.

What tradition are you coming from that you seem to need this fundamentalist approach?

Uh, I hail from Anglicanism. My views have nothing to do with what “tradition” I was raised in. And I think slinging the “fundamentalist” label around isn’t very hospitable, either.

And I think you are off to a bad start here if you think that you will just believe what the Church tells you. How first of all can you force yourself to believe what you clearly don’t? And second, you might want to look at your responsibilty to your own well-formed conscience, if indeed it is so.

We’ve been through this on another thread. The well-formed concience is subject to the Church teachings, according to the Catechism.

I just don’t see the reason to believe in evolution when it’s so unscientific. For instance, theistic evolution violates the 2nd and 3rd Laws of Thermodynamics. And also, many of their dating methods are completely unscientific and useless. Such as Carbon-14 Dating.