The earth is only 6000 years old.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Justin_Mee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edwest2 said:
It is possible that Cardinal Schoenborn is right - there are no transitional fossils.
Click to expand...
For the purpose of clarification, that is not something Cardinal Schonborn would say. You gave me your source for that statement, but your source is dead wrong. As I stated previously, Cardinal Schonborn has been the subject of considerable misinterpretation, especially so by Catholics who should know better.

First, Cardinal Schonborn is not a supporter of ID theory. When he spoke of “intelligent design” in the NYT op-ed article it was clearly in terms of classical philosophy and not ID theory.

Second, Cardinal Schonborn is not a fundamentalist creationist, and I don’t think anyone has ever mistaken him for one.

Third, Cardinal Schonborn advocates a theory of evolution in the context of classical philosophical notions and Church theology. Hence, he is not about to contradict himself by denying scientific evidence for the existence of transitional types.

Regarding evolution Schonborn says, “There is no doubt that our world is a world of becoming, in which the unfolding of the cosmos, and evolution, have made human life possible on this planet.”

(Chance or Purpose: Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith by Cardinal Schonborn; p.81).
 
aspirant said:
Just the opposite. Dei Verbum completely rules out the reduction of the scriptural authors to mere “pens.” A pen is a mere tool with no will of its own that makes no contribution of its own in terms of literary style, etc. The Catholic Church, on the contrary, teaches that the human authors of scripture are true authors who make unique contributions to the texts. It is their intentions in which the literal sense of scripture is discerned.
Click to expand...
:banghead: It’s a metapho…awww *
I must not play word games on the net.
I must not play word games on the net
I must not play word games on the net* :banghead:

WHOA! Maybe I’m not Catholic! :eek:

:cool::cool: :hmmm:
 
itinerant1 said:
The problem with “teach all sides” in science class is the advocates of this approach want equal time for views that are not science. “Teach all sides” would not constitute a teaching of competing scientific theories. For instance, “creation science” is not science, and so it has no place in the science curriculum as a competing scientific viewpoint.

Furthermore, presenting “creation science” would just confuse the students as to the nature and methods of the natural sciences.

For those who believe there are ideological problems with neo-Darwinism, all I will say here is I maintain that promoting the flawed ideas of fundamentalist creationism or Intelligent Design theory is not the solution.
Click to expand...
I proposed empirical science (testable, repeatable and predictable) only in the science classroom. Students should have mandatory philosophy and metaphysics courses.
 
buffalo said:
I proposed empirical science (testable, repeatable and predictable) only in the science classroom. Students should have mandatory philosophy and metaphysics courses.
Click to expand...
That’s how most schools teach evolutionary biology and other sciences. What they need to add is the philosophy component.
 
StAnastasia said:
That’s how most schools teach evolutionary biology and other sciences. What they need to add is the philosophy component.
Click to expand...
Agreed - with the philosophy comment.

How is evolutionary biology repeatable, testable and predictable?
 
itinerant1 said:
For the purpose of clarification, that is not something Cardinal Schonborn would say. You gave me your source for that statement, but your source is dead wrong. As I stated previously, Cardinal Schonborn has been the subject of considerable misinterpretation, especially so by Catholics who should know better.

First, Cardinal Schonborn is not a supporter of ID theory. When he spoke of “intelligent design” in the NYT op-ed article it was clearly in terms of classical philosophy and not ID theory.

Second, Cardinal Schonborn is not a fundamentalist creationist, and I don’t think anyone has ever mistaken him for one.

Third, Cardinal Schonborn advocates a theory of evolution in the context of classical philosophical notions and Church theology. Hence, he is not about to contradict himself by denying scientific evidence for the existence of transitional types.

Regarding evolution Schonborn says, “There is no doubt that our world is a world of becoming, in which the unfolding of the cosmos, and evolution, have made human life possible on this planet.”

(Chance or Purpose: Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith by Cardinal Schonborn; p.81).
Click to expand...
Did I mention ID? Why the knee-jerk reaction?

I invite everyone to read the following. The key points are made in the first two paragraphs.

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

I honestly appreciate your clarification regarding my previous statement. It’s odd that a learned person here would attribute something to the Cardinal incorrectly.

Peace,
Ed
 
Mr_Skeptic said:
The focus should be on teaching the best explanations of wherever the evidence and observations lead. Else, under the feel-good auspices of “teaching all sides and let the children decide”, we should be giving flat-earth equal time and legitimacy as modern geology. We should be giving the Ptolemy’s geocentric model equal time and legitimacy as Copernicus’ heliocentric model. We should be giving astrology equal time and legitimacy as astronomy. We should be giving alchemy equal time and legitimacy as chemistry.

The possibilities should definitely be narrowed down to the models that actually work - not every single, half-baked or obsolete idea that’s out there, unless you really want to confuse the students and lower the bar for science.
Click to expand...
I have noticed among similar comments the obsessive desire to “teach” students something called science. It is the number one concern, nothing else matters. Considering how many kids don’t graduate from high school, or need remedial education once they reach college, it is puzzling why science is such an important issue here, and in the outside world where comments about making sure we “teach kids science” are so dramatically emphasized. I submit that all this supposed concern over science is not about science at all but about promoting a worldview – an anti-theistic worldview.

The dramatic analogies above are examples of the emotionalism that comes with illustrating the importance of something called science.

If anyone looks at where most people work today, biology is certainly not a requirement. So why the fuss? Again, I submit it is to insure kids get properly indoctrinated in a worldview that assumes all life came from nothing and sprang, by itself, into a cold, uncaring universe. I can understand why some parents home school.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Considering how many kids don’t graduate from high school, or need remedial education once they reach college, it is puzzling why science is such an important issue here
Click to expand...
Sounds like you’re answering your own question there.
 
StAnastasia said:
Visit a university and talk to a biologist. Or start here: evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
Click to expand...
Unless you are referring to experiments that are conducted in a lab that are testable, repeatable and predictable it is not empirical. When you try to extrapolate from these experiments what happened a billion years ago, it is an educated/assumptive guess.

In addition when the community you are so fond of only picks the gems they like and the peer review only moves those forward it is no wonder that you believe what you do. Are you open to dissent? Are your evo bio friends open to dissent? Or will they only self-perpetuate evolutionism?
 
StAnastasia said:
Reading and writing are not exclusive of science.
Click to expand...
If a student cannot read at his grade level, his comprehension will be poor. In Detroit, right now, thousands of volunteers are coming in to help solve that problem. If a student can’t read then he can’t do science.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
If a student cannot read at his grade level, his comprehension will be poor. In Detroit, right now, thousands of volunteers are coming in to help solve that problem. If a student can’t read then he can’t do science.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
I am not sure of this. An illiterate can go outside and conduct gravity tests. His conclusion will be as valid as one who can write.
 
edwest2 said:
If a student cannot read at his grade level, his comprehension will be poor. In Detroit, right now, thousands of volunteers are coming in to help solve that problem. If a student can’t read then he can’t do science. Peace, Ed
Click to expand...
Right, you need reading to practice science. Reading and science are not mutually exclusive.
 
buffalo said:
I am not sure of this. An illiterate can go outside and conduct gravity tests. His conclusion will be as valid as one who can write.
Click to expand...
An illiterate might not understand the theory of gravity, even if she or he could watch things fall down.
 
buffalo said:
Unless you are referring to experiments that are conducted in a lab that are testable, repeatable and predictable it is not empirical. When you try to extrapolate from these experiments what happened a billion years ago, it is an educated/assumptive guess.
Click to expand...
Not true – evolution is predictive. It predicted the discovery of Tiktaalik, and it predicts the evolution of the flu and of bacteria. It is quite testable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top