S
StAnastasia
Guest
Is there any evidence to support your claim of “brainwashing?”
- Status
G
G01
Guest
Hi, fairly new to the forum, so many probably do not recognize me. I’d like to make a few points about the debate between evolution and intelligent design.
(For the record, I am a scientist by profession, a physicist to be specific. I support evolution as a valid scientific theory. I am also a practicing Catholic and pretty serious about it.)
Evolution says nothing about the existence or influence of God on the world.
In fact, recognizing that evolution as an accurate scientific theory (in it’s range of validity) is not against Catholic teaching. The church has no problem with that.
What the Church has a problem with is certain philosophical interpretations of evolution. That is, the interpretation that life is a fluke and governed solely by random mutations is not OK, according to the Church. However, the interpretation that God is behind the mechanisms of evolution (what physically seem to be random chance mutations) to create the diversity of life on Earth is OK. The problem here is that people on both sides can’t separate the scientific facts and data from the philosophical interpretations of the data. (John Paul II wrote some great stuff on Catholic belief and evolution. Please take some time to look it up and read it.)
In reality, evolution, whether a correct or incorrect model, gives no scientific proof for or against the existence or actions of God. How could it? By the definitions of both science and God, science can never prove or disprove God. Science is the study of physical reality. God, by definition, is beyond physical reality. **What people need to realize is that the real matter of contention is the conflicting philosophical interpretations.
**
Secondly, we need to take step back and try to understand each other. Not everyone who supports the theory of evolution is trying to push a materialistic world view onto children in the school system. Evolution explains many things very well. This is why a majority of scientists accept it as a valid theory. It is not flat out wrong, and there is evidence for it.
Also, not everyone who questions evolution is an uneducated idiot, nor are people with religious beliefs idiots. I’ve seen many conversations on this topic (not necessarily this one) degenerate to insults and insinuations. Instead, if we treat each other like intelligent adult human beings, we can make progress into understanding both sides of this argument.
Anyway, to summarize:
(For the record, I am a scientist by profession, a physicist to be specific. I support evolution as a valid scientific theory. I am also a practicing Catholic and pretty serious about it.)
Evolution says nothing about the existence or influence of God on the world.
In fact, recognizing that evolution as an accurate scientific theory (in it’s range of validity) is not against Catholic teaching. The church has no problem with that.
What the Church has a problem with is certain philosophical interpretations of evolution. That is, the interpretation that life is a fluke and governed solely by random mutations is not OK, according to the Church. However, the interpretation that God is behind the mechanisms of evolution (what physically seem to be random chance mutations) to create the diversity of life on Earth is OK. The problem here is that people on both sides can’t separate the scientific facts and data from the philosophical interpretations of the data. (John Paul II wrote some great stuff on Catholic belief and evolution. Please take some time to look it up and read it.)
In reality, evolution, whether a correct or incorrect model, gives no scientific proof for or against the existence or actions of God. How could it? By the definitions of both science and God, science can never prove or disprove God. Science is the study of physical reality. God, by definition, is beyond physical reality. **What people need to realize is that the real matter of contention is the conflicting philosophical interpretations.
**
Secondly, we need to take step back and try to understand each other. Not everyone who supports the theory of evolution is trying to push a materialistic world view onto children in the school system. Evolution explains many things very well. This is why a majority of scientists accept it as a valid theory. It is not flat out wrong, and there is evidence for it.
Also, not everyone who questions evolution is an uneducated idiot, nor are people with religious beliefs idiots. I’ve seen many conversations on this topic (not necessarily this one) degenerate to insults and insinuations. Instead, if we treat each other like intelligent adult human beings, we can make progress into understanding both sides of this argument.
Anyway, to summarize:
- Evolution (the scientific theory) does not conflict with Catholic teaching(again, check out JPII).
- The matter of contention is really the philosophical interpretations of that theory, which really have nothing to do with the science at all.
- Both sides of this debate need to give the other side the benefit of the doubt and try to better understand each other.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
I just finished watching the movie and then that link.
I didn’t expect to like the movie at all. I don’t respect Ben Stein as a deep thinking person and have gained a phobia for “true stories” and “documentaries” due to years of them being filled with so many distortions obviously designed to subvert the beliefs of the observer, that I hate the very thought of having to sit through yet another psychologically formulated presentation of what you the public are to “feel” and thus believe.
Yet despite that high degree of bias that I have, I found the movie to be extraordinarily accurate of the real political issues that I have been watching since the 70’s. I was amazed that someone actually just out and out finally showed the truth of it.
But then I watched that YouTube presentation and there the all too familiar accuser, liar, and trickster appears again who demonstrated that he didn’t even know what the Scientific Method actually is yet repeatedly called Stein a “fool” for being so ignorant. Same ole same ole, the guilt accusing itself.
Scientism is an undeclared, unapproved, and unadmitted religion with roots throughout the West and directly supporting our new age Nazism with intimidation tactics and belief controls. They have merely learned to hide. Those we meet online are just the unwitting hairs [of the beast].
S
StAnastasia
Guest
expelledexposed.com/
"Welcome to Expelled Exposed, a detailed look at the Ben Stein movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. We’ll show you why this movie is not a documentary at all, but anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none.
“To learn why the claims made in Expelled are false, find out The Truth behind the Fiction. For information on the producers and their actions, go Behind the Scenes. To learn more about evolution and intelligent design, or to see what other people thought of Expelled, view our links to other online Resources. For the results of the contest to refute claims by the film’s spokesperson, see how visitors to Expelled Exposed Set Ben Straight.”
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
But that is just more “attack the person if you can’t attack the content”. The link is just a list of more accusations with no presented evidence.
Stein’s argument is really only about politics being used in the education system. He said nothing against Science, but rather that it is being corrupted by intimidaters. Every school teacher knows how such works and has forever. I have personally met with school boards of local schools. It was like a witches council where everyone waited to see what they were permitted to say. They very seriously never wanted to see me there again - I was underhandedly sweet to them. They were at a complete loss as to what to do.
Stein really said nothing I haven’t been aware of for many years. He was exactly right. If you don’t believe him then a) you simply haven’t seen behind the scenes as we have, or b) you are one of those being discussed.
S
Shin
Guest
Yes, unless you meet the standards of the college board, all their hangups and politically correct views, you are not in. If you are in, and you are not tenured, you are out, if you are tenured, you are not promoted any further.
Academic freedom in these times is a contradiction in terms when you come up against many sacred cows, and those include not only Intelligent Design, but many other politically incorrect views.
And Expelled is a great expose of this methodology.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
And btw,
““Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” ~ Communion and Stewardship (2002)”
That argument is non-sense. It is like saying that because we have discovered that all automobiles use engines and seats, it is obvious that they were all invented and manufactured by the same company.
The same non-logic is used in saying that the Gospels must have all come from one document because they all tell the same story (well… DUHHhh!!).
Why is it that the anti-religion people SO often use non-logic as their foundational arguments while standing behind phony sciencism made of unscientific fantasy entities?
““Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.” ~ Communion and Stewardship (2002)”
That argument is non-sense. It is like saying that because we have discovered that all automobiles use engines and seats, it is obvious that they were all invented and manufactured by the same company.
The same non-logic is used in saying that the Gospels must have all come from one document because they all tell the same story (well… DUHHhh!!).
Why is it that the anti-religion people SO often use non-logic as their foundational arguments while standing behind phony sciencism made of unscientific fantasy entities?
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
But to the Catholics or other Christians (and Jews), don’t think that their guilt in any way removes your own.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No, “Expelled” is a load of nonsense. No one is being persecuted. The “martyrs” of the film were let go for competence or other reasons, not becuase they challenged evolution.Academic freedom in these times is a contradiction in terms when you come up against many sacred cows, and those include not only Intelligent Design, but many other politically incorrect views. And Expelled is a great expose of this methodology.
Schools have to make hard choices on what to teach because teaching time is limited. If they were to allow ID Creationism or YE Creationism in the biology classroom, why not allow astrology? or numerology? or alchemy? Those are neither more nor less legitimate than Creationism. On what grounds would you prohibit an astronomy teacher from teaching about the stars and constellations influencing our lives?
No – restrict science classes to science. If a school wants to explore some of the variants of creationism, a philosophy class would be the appropriate venue.
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
That’s Pope Benedict’s (Josef Ratzinger’s) argument – you’ll have to take it up with him. He accepts common descent.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Stein was just a paid mouthpiece for a special interest group, like the special interest group that was trying to keep creationism in Texas biology books.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
And what is your evidence of that? They testify differently. You are not associated with them. How do you know anything about it at all?
What they have reported, I have seen as typical from my own direct observation and thus is easy for me to believe. What makes you think that you know?
You’re sounding like a Conspiracy Theory nut case…?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Excuse me, but you’re the one who’s claiming an academic conspiracy to deprive ID supporters of their jobs.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
And you are the one who said;
The difference is that I am talking from direct experience added to the testimony of others (they call that Science these days) whereas you are constructing a theory based on suspicion.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
It’s not suspicion, but the deep experience of science-deniers trying to squeeze religion into the science classroom. I have no problem with students discussing various cultural perspectives such as ID, YEC, or atheistic evolution, but do it in a philosophy class, not a science class.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
“Deep experience”?!?
Oh you mean like the Christian’s proof of God - “I just feel it deep inside”?
Yeah well, until you can show either evidence or actual accurate logic that their intentions are what you claim, it remains only your suspicion of others and an unfounded “conspiracy theory”.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
You guys are the ones who are complaining. When you can show that “intelligent design” is a science, you will no doubt be welcomed into the science classroom. Until then, the burden of proof is on you to show that it is science.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Until Science can prove that ID is impossible or even truly highly improbable with real logic, then Science should not be confined to your theories alone.
The complaint isn’t that religion belongs in the Science class, but that Science is being narrowed to what only some people speculate and that anyone suggesting anything “unapproved” is being outcast and blacklisted.
The complaint is that Science is being TURNED into a religion. If you like Science, then you should help save it by accusing it of being a religion and make “them” prove that it isn’t, because it isn’t supposed to be.
You claim that no one is confining what is taught in Science classes to only what some people believe, but is open and honest. The EVIDENCE shows otherwise. Where is the “accountability”? Science is based on evidence, so why shouldn’t Science be required to show evidence that it is honest and not being turned into a religion?
If it isn’t going to go by the evidence or accurate logic, then in what way is it Science?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I’m a theologian, not a scientist, so it’s not a matter of my theories. Rather, biology researches and tests sound theories that explain the evidence. To date, ID has been tested and found wanting – even Michael Behe’s departmental colleagues at Lehigh University do not accept his theory.
In science the burden of proof always rests on the proposer of a hypothesis to show why it is a cogent theory. This was the case with Newton, Buffon, Lamarck, Darwin, Wegener, Watson and Crick, etc. Lamarckian evolution failed this test, and has been dropped from science. The same is true for astrology, alchemy, and numerology. Until ID can be shown scientifically to be cogent, it has not earned its spot in the biology curriculum.
That does not mean, of course, that the question of design should not be taught elsewhere such as in religion or philosophy classes. I am very much in favor of free exploration of ideas in such a context
StAnastasia
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
You evaded the question.
You are taking it on FAITH that Science classes are being honest in the way they hire and fire people and on whether they are accepting the ID issue on actual Science principles. These are 2 issues.
If a situation arises for whatever reason, that one must use prior Science to prove new ideas, then you have created a religion. That scenario requires that whatever “has been approved” MUST be the bases of whatever you claim. By that standard, ALL religions are Science.
In that YouTube video clip, the guy stated that the Scientific Method is evidence based on prior Science == a religion == authority defended belief. That is NOT what the Scientific Method actually is. He was making Science into a religion in that clip.
But regardless of whether ID belongs in the class, evidence shows that people are losing their jobs due to merely mentioning heresy. Much like a law suit, such a claim should be based on EVIDENCE from witnesses, not speculation from devotees.
You are the same as those who claimed that the KKK really wasn’t doing anything wrong or exercising any influence. There must be an investigation as to whether someone is “cheating” or taking advantage of the situation so as to promote their own agenda. It is called accountability.
**1) ID has been put forth as a theory with substantial evidence from many sources (of course if mentioning it is banned, then such evidence gets hidden).
- People are reporting that they are being fired for mentioning ID even when not teaching it or promoting it.**
- Status