The dangers of creationism in education

[Metaron]

If you look at my profile you will see that I am Buddhist; my views differ from those of the Church on many things.

My apologies, I did not realize you were Buddhist. You aren’t subject to Church teaching. I thought, for a second, that you were just an errant Roman Catholic or Anglican.

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.

I think you confuse Science (that which is) with expiramentation (that which is percieved to be by the expiramentors). Science is what is: Substance and accident. Expiramentation (except for certain miracles of accidental as well as substantial transformation) looks only at the accidental.

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

The only one that can exist in the modern world, and can apply it’s teachings to the modern world: The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, founded by the Christ.

 

[peary]

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?

Rather than argue with your arrogance, I will say it again in a different way: science, as a human endeavor, can reveal to us how God created the universe and through what process, but as far as the Word of God goes, Christianity is a religion of revelation, which means that it surpasses anything Science can tell us. The primary revelation is that God wishes to establish a New Covenant with humanity. He offers forgiveness and His love through His Son Jesus Christ. Science cannot reveal this to us - only His Church.

 

[Deconi]

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

**I second that! **

Science is the study of Creation.

I begin to tire of people saying Scriptures is not a science book, nor a history book!

Scriptures may not have the mathematical formulaes, but it is stack loaded with scientific knowledge! It may not recount history as we know it now, but it literally recounts the history of creation, and the people that ‘we’ have become!

 

[Deconi]

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.

Which is where you err. Sure, there are studies that postulate that Scriptures are a collection of fanciful accounts by various authors of their experiences. These same studies then suggest that these same authors exaggerate in places, plagiarize pagan rituals, worship and myths, and in places fabricate stories, to tell of the magnificent Judeo God, in order to defeat the parallel accounts held by heathens and pagans.

Clearly, you must also hold to the novelty that Scriptures is inerrant ONLY on matters of faith and morals, but riddled with errors and fabrications in the parts that do not relate to faith and morals!

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

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.
…

There is no YEC among Jewish Religion, which has been around 4,000 years more than Chrisitanity. The whole concept of YEC is only a few hundred years old and was made up by a SDA.

George McCready Price
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McCready_Price

And, frankly your questions are irrelevant to the history of YEC and to the truth or falsehood of YEC.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

This is pretty much nonsensical.

AMEN

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

**You are most correct. People are still free to believe in YEC and fairies as far as i know. My question is why would anyone choose this type of interpretation that is illogical, against the great weight of evidence and not required by the Church? Some personal need? **

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.

**Its definitionally what it is. And so that is the word that is appropriate. I know its hard to be in bed with such oddball proddies but hey, I’m not in bed with them. **

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

**And NO one is allowed to just sit back and have the Church spoon feed them doctrine. One has a brain, given by God, and one is expected to use it. One is REQUIRED to follow one’s own conscience in the end. **

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.

It is not unscientific in any respect. Your YEC pseudo-science claims have all be rejected numerous times on this forum. I’m surprised you would even dare raise the silly 2nd law argument, or dating. Waiting for the transitional strawman and the ambiogensis one as well. PROVE CREATIONISM.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Which is where you err. Sure, there are studies that postulate that Scriptures are a collection of fanciful accounts by various authors of their experiences. These same studies then suggest that these same authors exaggerate in places, plagiarize pagan rituals, worship and myths, and in places fabricate stories, to tell of the magnificent Judeo God, in order to defeat the parallel accounts held by heathens and pagans.

Clearly, you must also hold to the novelty that Scriptures is inerrant ONLY on matters of faith and morals, but riddled with errors and fabrications in the parts that do not relate to faith and morals!

lol…I err? you are presumptuous. I did not say they were fanciful accounts. If you intend to debate, then state what is said correctly.

Clearly you are not Catholic so there is little point in continuing. I’m not about to debate inerrency with a fundamenatlist. Its a singular waste of time since your need is psychological in nature rather than being based on any empirical facts.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

There is no YEC among Jewish Religion, which has been around 4,000 years more than Chrisitanity. The whole concept of YEC is only a few hundred years old and was made up by a SDA.

George McCready Price
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McCready_Price

And, frankly your questions are irrelevant to the history of YEC and to the truth or falsehood of YEC.

This is what becomes the most amusingt thing in these discussions. It is highly unlikely that the people of the time ever thought of these stories as real. They were well ensconced in the world of oral stories, myths handed down from generations. They knew that it was the theological truth that was being conveyed, not some scientific declaration of how things were made.

The confusion that spills from the sola scriptura, I need no help understanding this, person is a cross we must all bear it seems…

 

[Deconi]

lol…I err? you are presumptuous. I did not say they were fanciful accounts. If you intend to debate, then state what is said correctly.

Clearly you are not Catholic so there is little point in continuing. I’m not about to debate inerrency with a fundamenatlist. Its a singular waste of time since your need is psychological in nature rather than being based on any empirical facts.

Since we’re in to name calling and labelling, your views are pompous. Since your premise ‘allows’ for factual errors in Scriptures, there is no way we can debate inerrancy. My adherence to Catholic dogma, you may label “fundamentalist” and wave it aside, but it is nonetheless, Catholic dogma. One of us need psychological assistance, but I fear you may also require a liberal mxture of chemical substances to affect any change in your attitude as well as a powerful pair of reading glasses to scrutinize the teachings and assertions of actual Catholic doctrines! NOT what the popular opinions are of your referenced cites, NOR the opinions of even the prelates of Catholicism. They have intellectual insight into matters Catholic, BUT ARE NOT what the Catholic Church holds to! Learn and understand the distinction and YAWNING differences.

Empirical facts??!! You partake in the SUPERNATURAL, an un-scientifically proven MIRACLE everytime you attend Mass, every week! Yet you reduce arguments between what the Church holds and professes, and scientific assertions, to empirical proof and it matters little to you that you find what The Church holds, wanting?!!

Prayers; Supernatural. Eucharist; Supernatural.

Like I said, you err! Scriptures is without error. That is not in parts, but the WHOLE SHEBANG! If it is clear that I am not Catholic, it is crystal that you must examine yours.

That said, you do know I love you though, don’t you?!

 

[justinthemartyr]

the schools must first stop trying to pass off evolution as some type of actual science before you can claim that creation is not such.

It takes far more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation. the only link we find in evolution is assumption.

 

[inthecloud]

Another evolution thread.
Well theistic evolution makes a lot of sense. Atheistic evolution have some problems, namely how a universe that can sustain life came into existance. We either were very lucky or there were n number of posible universes until one could sustain life. The former option impies a leap of faith. The last one takes the randomess of atheistic evolution to a new level. And a non observable one.
So I think is God. Is my Pascalian bet.
And He created the rules that eventually will lead the universe to have intelligent life But God in not a incompetend watchmaker. He/She knows were His laws will end. He does not need to intervene all the time as the Creationist or ID people insist.
So the idea that evolution is against religion is false.
Is more a idea of fundamental Sola Scripturist that use that to defend their belief of a Bible that does not need authority, scholarship or tradition to understand. Is also a idea the Islamic fundies share about the Koran.
The CC threatment of the evolution problem has been exemplary. She avoided the issue in the XIX century while giving subtle leads from the Vatican that a non literal reading of Genesis was posible and allowing the theologues to research the issue.

 

[peary]

Another evolution thread.
Well theistic evolution makes a lot of sense. Atheistic evolution have some problems, namely how a universe that can sustain life came into existance. We either were very lucky or there were n number of posible universes until one could sustain life. The former option impies a leap of faith. The last one takes the randomess of atheistic evolution to a new level. And a non observable one.
So I think is God. Is my Pascalian bet.
And He created the rules that eventually will lead the universe to have intelligent life But God in not a incompetend watchmaker. He/She knows were His laws will end. He does not need to intervene all the time as the Creationist or ID people insist.
So the idea that evolution is against religion is false.
Is more a idea of fundamental Sola Scripturist that use that to defend their belief of a Bible that does not need authority, scholarship or tradition to understand. Is also a idea the Islamic fundies share about the Koran.
The CC threatment of the evolution problem has been exemplary. She avoided the issue in the XIX century while giving subtle leads from the Vatican that a non literal reading of Genesis was posible and allowing the theologues to research the issue.

**I have always contended that evolution IS the Divine Plan!! **