UK bans teaching of creationism in any school which receives public funding

[edwest2]

You have not shown and cannot show that I don’t know what science is about. Nor have you shown that you know what it is about. You just make questionable generalizations and statements that are not to the point.

I am not against science per se,but naturalistic explanations that attribute powers to nature that nature cannot possibly have. I reject the theory of evolution primarily because it goes against reason and logic,not because it goes against my personal faith. The theory is incompatible with Catholic doctrine because it is illogical. If a scientific theory proposes causes and effects that don’t correspond,then it goes against reason and logic,and thus it is incompatible with the Catholic doctrine of creation and divine providence,even if many Catholics think it is compatible with their faith.

In regard to methodological naturalism,it is not just about the fact that science cannot test the supernatural. It is a way of viewing and explaining things,not a way of testing things. It is an assumption that all natural phenomena can be adequately explained with natural causes alone. This is an indirect way of saying that nature is all there is. If God is involved with the workings of nature,if he is the causal power behind certain natural phenomena,then obviously those phenomena cannot be adequately explained with natural causes alone. The naturalistic view leads,in some cases,to false attributions of power to natural causes. It leads to explanations that falsely portray nature as self-sufficient and self-creative. That the supernatural cannot be scientifically tested does not justify methodological naturalism,because scientific work is not only doing tests and research,but also explaining causes and effects. This requires logical thinking,not the assumption that natural causes are
always adequate.

Methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism both exclude the supernatural. They both view the natural world as if God’s power is not present. Ontological naturalism is not philosophical by itself,it is just a false perspective. There is nothing philosophical in saying only nature exists. Anyone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural can say that,without having been influenced by naturalistic philosophy and without philosophical elaboration. On the other hand,methodological naturalism is implicitly ontological,because if knowledge of God’s power over nature is always ignored,then natural things always appear as the only causes. We cannot separate the natural world from the power of its Creator without falling into the error of ontological naturalism. God is distinct from the natural world,but he is not separate from it. His power is the cause of the existence of matter,natural order,life,species and human thought.

The naturalistic view is ontological and false whether it is expressed by philosophers or adopted for the practical purposes of science. So the distinction between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism is only a difference of context and expression.

Well stated. Science has value but it must be testable and reproducible. At worst, it is like a horse with blinders on both sides which can see in only one direction, while missing a lot of other information in the process. While reading the highly technical scientific literature, conclusions are drawn that are pure conjecture, and, by definition, give assumed power to nature to perform certain functions and to be goal-oriented. Living things are integrated systems that interact with the environment in complex ways. They can’t be partially functional, they must be fully functional.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Monkey1976]

I am not against science per se,but naturalistic explanations that attribute powers to nature that nature cannot possibly have. I reject the theory of evolution primarily because it goes against reason and logic,not because it goes against my personal faith. The theory is incompatible with Catholic doctrine because it is illogical. If a scientific theory proposes causes and effects that don’t correspond,then it goes against reason and logic,and thus it is incompatible with the Catholic doctrine of creation and divine providence,even if many Catholics think it is compatible with their faith.

How exactly does evolution - not evolutionism, which is a naturalistic philosophy, but the theory that forms develop over time - either “attribute powers to nature that nature cannot possibly have” or go “against reason and logic”?

In regard to methodological naturalism,it is not just about the fact that science cannot test the supernatural. It is a way of viewing and explaining things,not a way of testing things. It is an assumption that all natural phenomena can be adequately explained with natural causes alone. This is an indirect way of saying that nature is all there is. If God is involved with the workings of nature,if he is the causal power behind certain natural phenomena,then obviously those phenomena cannot be adequately explained with natural causes alone. The naturalistic view leads,in some cases,to false attributions of power to natural causes. It leads to explanations that falsely portray nature as self-sufficient and self-creative. That the supernatural cannot be scientifically tested does not justify methodological naturalism,because scientific work is not only doing tests and research,but also explaining causes and effects. This requires logical thinking,not the assumption that natural causes are always adequate.

Yet we can - with a surprising degree of accuracy - make predictions about the observable world and see them validated every day. God seems to have written certain rules into the universe and given us minds capable of discovering, comprehending, and utilizing them. We can look at a whale and wonder how an air-breathing mammal came to live in the ocean. Evolutionary theory tells us that it must have developed from land-dwelling forms just like all other mammals. We’ve validated that prediction by discovering fossils and bones showing the full evolutionary history of whales, just as predicted. From a wolf-like predator that lived on the shores of a now-vanished sea, to something like a carnivorous hippo, the gradual disappearance of legs, the development of tail flukes, all the way to the largest animals ever to exist on the planet. God wrote reason into the very fabric of the universe. He is not capricious, neither is He a trickster who would lay down a trail of false evidence to try and catch us out.

Methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism both exclude the supernatural. They both view the natural world as if God’s power is not present. Ontological naturalism is not philosophical by itself,it is just a false perspective. There is nothing philosophical in saying only nature exists. Anyone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural can say that,without having been influenced by naturalistic philosophy and without philosophical elaboration. On the other hand,methodological naturalism is implicitly ontological,because if knowledge of God’s power over nature is always ignored,then natural things always appear as the only causes. We cannot separate the natural world from the power of its Creator without falling into the error of ontological naturalism. God is distinct from the natural world,but he is not separate from it. His power is the cause of the existence of matter,natural order,life,species and human thought.

The naturalistic view is ontological and false whether it is expressed by philosophers or adopted for the practical purposes of science. So the distinction between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism is only a difference of context and expression.

Again, you’re both conflating a philosophy with science and criticizing a tool for not doing a job for which it is not designed. In English, when a word ends with “-ism”, it is the name of a philosophy. Quantum mechanics makes no claim regarding God - do we throw it out? Relativity is silent regarding the Divine - should it be disregarded? Mathematics is mute when it comes to Our Lord - do we consign it to the dustbin of bad ideas? One cannot put God in a test tube, which is what you seem to be demanding.

 

[edwest2]

How exactly does evolution - not evolutionism, which is a naturalistic philosophy, but the theory that forms develop over time - either “attribute powers to nature that nature cannot possibly have” or go “against reason and logic”?

Yet we can - with a surprising degree of accuracy - make predictions about the observable world and see them validated every day. God seems to have written certain rules into the universe and given us minds capable of discovering, comprehending, and utilizing them. We can look at a whale and wonder how an air-breathing mammal came to live in the ocean. Evolutionary theory tells us that it must have developed from land-dwelling forms just like all other mammals. We’ve validated that prediction by discovering fossils and bones showing the full evolutionary history of whales, just as predicted. From a wolf-like predator that lived on the shores of a now-vanished sea, to something like a carnivorous hippo, the gradual disappearance of legs, the development of tail flukes, all the way to the largest animals ever to exist on the planet. God wrote reason into the very fabric of the universe. He is not capricious, neither is He a trickster who would lay down a trail of false evidence to try and catch us out.

Again, you’re both conflating a philosophy with science and criticizing a tool for not doing a job for which it is not designed. In English, when a word ends with “-ism”, it is the name of a philosophy. Quantum mechanics makes no claim regarding God - do we throw it out? Relativity is silent regarding the Divine - should it be disregarded? Mathematics is mute when it comes to Our Lord - do we consign it to the dustbin of bad ideas? One cannot put God in a test tube, which is what you seem to be demanding.

So why is creation/evolution so hotly debated here? What is the purpose? What is the practical outcome of the average person rejecting certain scientific ideas? I have yet to receive a response to that question aside from science has made/invented certain things for us. Yes and I’m grateful, but scientific knowledge is not the only knowledge man has.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Hans_W]

Intelligent Design was invented by Protestants and the vast majority of it’s proponents are fundamentalist Christians.

ID grew out of the old creationism. It tries to distance itself from fundamentalism, but “creation” was simply replaced by “design”. And the designer is not identified as God, to get around the state/church separation in the US.

 

[Hans_W]

The following is from a member of the National Academy of Sciences:

the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/

Peace,
Ed

More than 99% of biologists accept evolution as the best explanation of how life developed after it started in very simple form. There will be tens of thousands of Christians among those 99%.

You will never get a 100% agreement. There are always a few nutcases. And if you look at those few rejecting evolution, they will all be in the Intelligent Design camp. Michael Behe is one (he is not a biologist but a biochemist, by the way). And Behe accepts common descent, he just thinks that God has to intervene from time to time, tinker with the genes.

Jonathan Wells is another one of those nutcases: after finishing a theological degree he got himself a PhD in biology with the only goal of destroying evolution. Needless to say, he didn’t get very far.

 

[Hans_W]

So why is creation/evolution so hotly debated here? What is the purpose? What is the practical outcome of the average person rejecting certain scientific ideas? I have yet to receive a response to that question aside from science has made/invented certain things for us. Yes and I’m grateful, but scientific knowledge is not the only knowledge man has.

God bless,
Ed

It’s not debated. There is a ban on this topic, and I can see why. People voice their personal opinion without having any idea of what they are talking about.

There is no discussion among scientists of whether evolution occurred or not.

That should be enough for the layperson. It is not anti-religion. The Catholic Church has accepted this theory as they have accepted any other scientific theory. If it was anything anti-religion, they would have opposed it. Since science doesn’t deal with the supernatural, science doesn’t oppose religion.

Don’t be fooled by people, religious fundamentalists as well as radical atheists, who claim that science and religion are in conflict. There is no conflict. Believe me, I am studying that stuff!

 

[Hans_W]

You have not shown and cannot show that I don’t know what science is about. Nor have you shown that you know what it is about. You just make questionable generalizations and statements that are not to the point.

I am not against science per se, …
…

Methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism both exclude the supernatural. They both view the natural world as if God’s power is not present. Ontological naturalism is not philosophical by itself,it is just a false perspective. There is nothing philosophical in saying only nature exists. Anyone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural can say that,without having been influenced by naturalistic philosophy and without philosophical elaboration. On the other hand,methodological naturalism is implicitly ontological,because if knowledge of God’s power over nature is always ignored,then natural things always appear as the only causes. We cannot separate the natural world from the power of its Creator without falling into the error of ontological naturalism. God is distinct from the natural world,but he is not separate from it. His power is the cause of the existence of matter,natural order,life,species and human thought.

The naturalistic view is ontological and false whether it is expressed by philosophers or adopted for the practical purposes of science. So the distinction between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism is only a difference of context and expression.

Thanks for this lecture. Unfortunately, I can’t use a single statement in my thesis on methodological and ontological naturalism, because it’s all nonsense.

There is no point in discussing evolution with a creationist; it’s like playing chess with a pigeon …

But for the lurkers out there, who have an open mind and who want to learn more, I recommend the following:

Books:
- Kenneth Miller “Finding Darwin’s God”
- Kenneth Miller “Only a Theory”
- Francis Collins “The Language of God”

Ken Miller is a biologist and a Catholic. His books are easy to read and you learn a lot about biology as well.

Father Robert Barron has lots of short videos on YouTube, many of them on faith/reason/science and on how to interprete the Bible.

Dinesh D’Souza is a great debator for Christianity. You can find many of his debates with atheists on YouTube. He is very knowledgeable on philosophy, religion, Bible and science.

A few other great Catholic scientists/philosophers you can look up: Fr George Coyne, Ernan McMullin.

Gordon Glover is a Christian who put a great series on science/philosophy on YouTube:
youtube.com/watch?v=Fperp1Mezt0

It is a 16-part series, starting very basic, but building up in a quite in-depth presentation. He also explain methodological naturalism and contrasts it with ontological naturalism.

 

[Kaninchen]

There is no point in discussing evolution with a creationist; it’s like playing chess with a pigeon …

It’s a bit of a ‘round up the usual suspects’ game here that’s for sure.

 

[ringil]

So why is creation/evolution so hotly debated here? What is the purpose? What is the practical outcome of the average person rejecting certain scientific ideas? I have yet to receive a response to that question aside from science has made/invented certain things for us. Yes and I’m grateful, but scientific knowledge is not the only knowledge man has.

God bless,
Ed

I come on board with these talks because I don 't want lurkers thinking that a high percentage of Catholics swallow ID, Creationism, Devolution (which some poster here invented by a poster here).

I find it embarrassing and I am afraid that it could turn people off to the Faith.

The majority of Bishops, Priests, and educated laity accept the basic tenets of evolution.

 

[edwest2]

It’s not debated. There is a ban on this topic, and I can see why. People voice their personal opinion without having any idea of what they are talking about.

There is no discussion among scientists of whether evolution occurred or not.

That should be enough for the layperson. It is not anti-religion. The Catholic Church has accepted this theory as they have accepted any other scientific theory. If it was anything anti-religion, they would have opposed it. Since science doesn’t deal with the supernatural, science doesn’t oppose religion.

Don’t be fooled by people, religious fundamentalists as well as radical atheists, who claim that science and religion are in conflict. There is no conflict. Believe me, I am studying that stuff!

There is definitely a conflict among the public as is obvious. The Catholic Church takes a far more nuanced stance which cannot be written out in a few words. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences, so it does study scientific ideas.

Perhaps you will find the following helpful:

usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

On another note, people regularly present two totally opposed ideas here, sometimes at the same time:

The Bible - especially Genesis - is not a science text.

We will criticize the Bible - especially Genesis - as a science text.

As far as I know, there are no peer reviewed papers like: “Scientific Analysis of Claims in the Book of Genesis in the Christian Bible.”

That is a regular occurrence here and is puzzling since, as you state, science doesn’t deal with the supernatural. Again, that does not prevent threads from cropping up, on a regular basis, that use “science” to disprove this or that. And among these posters are people who honestly believe their thoughts are scientific, and provable, or disprovable as the case may be. Too many are not radicals.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Hans_W]

I come on board with these talks because I don 't want lurkers thinking that a high percentage of Catholics swallow ID, Creationism, Devolution (which some poster here invented by a poster here).

I find it embarrassing and I am afraid that it could turn people off to the Faith.

The majority of Bishops, Priests, and educated laity accept the basic tenets of evolution.

Thanks ringil - very true.

I went to and lived in German, French and Spanish-speaking countries. I’ve never seen any controversy there among Catholics. It is definitely a phenomenon in the English-speaking world, especially the US (it is only worse in the Islamic world).

Let me tell you a little story: Friends of ours, professional people and highly educated, are members of the Brethren church. They are Young Earth creationists with very strict literal reading of the Bible. Their youngest daughter, very bright and home-schooled, loves animals and nature in general. The parents are praying that she won’t go into a scientific career. If she goes on to study biology one day, she is in real danger of loosing her faith in God.

 

[Hans_W]

There is definitely a conflict among the public as is obvious. The Catholic Church takes a far more nuanced stance which cannot be written out in a few words. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences, so it does study scientific ideas.

Perhaps you will find the following helpful:

usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

On another note, people regularly present two totally opposed ideas here, sometimes at the same time:

The Bible - especially Genesis - is not a science text.

We will criticize the Bible - especially Genesis - as a science text.

As far as I know, there are no peer reviewed papers like: “Scientific Analysis of Claims in the Book of Genesis in the Christian Bible.”

That is a regular occurrence here and is puzzling since, as you state, science doesn’t deal with the supernatural. Again, that does not prevent threads from cropping up, on a regular basis, that use “science” to disprove this or that. And among these posters are people who honestly believe their thoughts are scientific, and provable, or disprovable as the case may be. Too many are not radicals.

Peace,
Ed

I agree that there seems to be a great conflict among the public in the US, but not among biologists - I can assure you.

The previous pope, very studious and intellectual on theological matters, was not inclined to scientific reasoning. I am quoting from the reference you have given:

Benedict said: “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

If this quote is correct, then it shows that the pope didn’t know much about the philosophy of science. No scientific theory is “complete”. No scientific theory is absolutely “proven”. You can find supporting evidence for a theory and you can find evidence which falsifies a theory. Once a theory is falsified, it is gone. There are lots of findings which would contradict evolution, for example finding fossils of a mammal in a Cambrian layer. This would disprove evolution. The theory of evolution would be dead. But, like any other scientific theory, it cannot be “proven” as fact.

 

[Hans_W]

On another note, people regularly present two totally opposed ideas here, sometimes at the same time:

The Bible - especially Genesis - is not a science text.

We will criticize the Bible - especially Genesis - as a science text.

As far as I know, there are no peer reviewed papers like: “Scientific Analysis of Claims in the Book of Genesis in the Christian Bible.”

Peace,
Ed

St Augustine has written a book on “The literal interpretation of the Bible” where he questions the literal interpretation of Genesis on intellectual and logical points. And that was 1600 years ago, with none of our present scientific knowledge whatsoever!

There are lots of Bible scholars who have looked into those “scientific claims in the Book of Genesis”. But you won’t find a geologist, chemist, astronomer or biologist who analyses those readings. They are busy looking at nature. As Galileo said: God has written two books, the Bible and the Book of Nature.

 

[edwest2]

I agree that there seems to be a great conflict among the public in the US, but not among biologists - I can assure you.

The previous pope, very studious and intellectual on theological matters, was not inclined to scientific reasoning. I am quoting from the reference you have given: If this quote is correct, then it shows that the pope didn’t know much about the philosophy of science. No scientific theory is “complete”. No scientific theory is absolutely “proven”. You can find supporting evidence for a theory and you can find evidence which falsifies a theory. Once a theory is falsified, it is gone. There are lots of findings which would contradict evolution, for example finding fossils of a mammal in a Cambrian layer. This would disprove evolution. The theory of evolution would be dead. But, like any other scientific theory, it cannot be “proven” as fact.

I disagree. Pope Benedict has made certain statements that show he does comprehend.
In the meantime, I believe the average person has every reason to be skeptical about Biology textbooks. These texts are the starting point for those who claim natural causes are 100% sufficient for the development of life on earth. I am not suggesting the supernatural/God should be added to Biology texts, but the message is clear: various natural forces, entirely on their own, are the completely sufficient explanation for the development of life. Although the Church has studied various theories (plural), believing they are wholly sufficient, by default, excludes God as a direct causal agent. It is at that point, for the layperson, the disconnect between science and knowledge provided by God, which we call Divine Revelation, comes into direct conflict.

Here, something else is very clear: for the layperson, science is not “over here” and religion is “over there.” The gist is: “Your Bible is wrong here, here and here, because science tells us so.”

I really like science but if you want to know the root cause among laypersons, not scientists, in being skeptical, there it is.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Hans_W]

I disagree. Pope Benedict has made certain statements that show he does comprehend.

If pope Benedict wrote that “the theory of evolution is not a completely scientifically proven theory” then he missed the point that not a single theory in science is complete and scientifically proven.

It would surprise me because Benedict had sufficiently knowledgeable advisers on hand. I think that these comments of his were written in a private context, not in his function as head of the Church. But yes, it did surprise me that two German speaking Church authorities (Pope Benedict as well as Cardinal Schönborn) had reservations. Opposition to evolution is very rare in German speaking countries.

In the meantime, I believe the average person has every reason to be skeptical about Biology textbooks. These texts are the starting point for those who claim natural causes are 100% sufficient for the development of life on earth. I am not suggesting the supernatural/God should be added to Biology texts, but the message is clear: various natural forces, entirely on their own, are the completely sufficient explanation for the development of life.

No, the man in the street has no reason to be skeptical about biology textbooks. The scientists are the skeptical ones. Books, even journal articles, are peer-reviewed and go through many steps to check on errors. Many of those reviewers will be religious scientists. Show me one passage in a biology book which says “natural causes are 100% sufficient for the development of life on earth”.

You will find these kind of statements in books and articles written by atheists, but these are not statements a scientist can make (if he/she is acting as a scientist).

BTW, the question of how life got started in the first place has not (yet) been answered by science, despite working on that problem for some 40 years. We have come a long way, and there are many things we do know and possible pathways. Perhaps it will always be an open question for science. I wouldn’t hold my breath, though. It would certainly not dent my belief in God if we can solve this mystery by natural means.

Although the Church has studied various theories (plural), believing they are wholly sufficient, by default, excludes God as a direct causal agent. It is at that point, for the layperson, the disconnect between science and knowledge provided by God, which we call Divine Revelation, comes into direct conflict.

It is not for the Church (or the pope) to study scientific theories. Only the specialists in that particular field can do that. Scientists are by nature skeptics. Constant peer-review guarantees that mistakes, errors, fraud, etc. are filtered out.

Can you give me an example where knowledge gained through science is in conflict with Divine Revelation? Yes, if you insist on a literal Bible interpretation, there are lots. You can start with the flat earth. But as Catholics we are not in that camp.

Keep in mind that science does not tell us about the ultimate origin of the universe (I assume you accept the Big Bang discovered by a Catholic priest). I know, Lawrence Krauss tries to convince us about a “universe from nothing” (very interesting book to read BTW). But he is speaking as an atheist. Look at how Christian apologists answer this point.

Here, something else is very clear: for the layperson, science is not “over here” and religion is “over there.” The gist is: “Your Bible is wrong here, here and here, because science tells us so.”

I really like science but if you want to know the root cause among laypersons, not scientists, in being skeptical, there it is.

Peace,
Ed

Yes, it boils down to the poor science education we have in our schools. I have spoken with a university professor who teaches biology. After every introductory course on evolution he gets students coming up asking “Is that how evolution works? I have always been told that evolution proves that there is no God”.

 

[ringil]

Thanks ringil - very true.

I went to and lived in German, French and Spanish-speaking countries. I’ve never seen any controversy there among Catholics. It is definitely a phenomenon in the English-speaking world, especially the US (it is only worse in the Islamic world).

I would say that a problematic approach in viewing evolution does exist in the American Church but I would still say it is pretty rare.= maybe more common than in Europe but still pretty rare.

I suspect it might be more common in the South or in areas with a large population of Evangelical Protestantism.

But in my case, I have lived in VA, NC, MA, and NY and I have never spoken to a Catholic who didn’t acknowledge the basic tenets of evolutionary theory.

 

[edwest2]

If pope Benedict wrote that “the theory of evolution is not a completely scientifically proven theory” then he missed the point that not a single theory in science is complete and scientifically proven.

It would surprise me because Benedict had sufficiently knowledgeable advisers on hand. I think that these comments of his were written in a private context, not in his function as head of the Church. But yes, it did surprise me that two German speaking Church authorities (Pope Benedict as well as Cardinal Schönborn) had reservations. Opposition to evolution is very rare in German speaking countries.

No, the man in the street has no reason to be skeptical about biology textbooks. The scientists are the skeptical ones. Books, even journal articles, are peer-reviewed and go through many steps to check on errors. Many of those reviewers will be religious scientists. Show me one passage in a biology book which says “natural causes are 100% sufficient for the development of life on earth”.

You will find these kind of statements in books and articles written by atheists, but these are not statements a scientist can make (if he/she is acting as a scientist).

BTW, the question of how life got started in the first place has not (yet) been answered by science, despite working on that problem for some 40 years. We have come a long way, and there are many things we do know and possible pathways. Perhaps it will always be an open question for science. I wouldn’t hold my breath, though. It would certainly not dent my belief in God if we can solve this mystery by natural means.

It is not for the Church (or the pope) to study scientific theories. Only the specialists in that particular field can do that. Scientists are by nature skeptics. Constant peer-review guarantees that mistakes, errors, fraud, etc. are filtered out.

Can you give me an example where knowledge gained through science is in conflict with Divine Revelation? Yes, if you insist on a literal Bible interpretation, there are lots. You can start with the flat earth. But as Catholics we are not in that camp.

Keep in mind that science does not tell us about the ultimate origin of the universe (I assume you accept the Big Bang discovered by a Catholic priest). I know, Lawrence Krauss tries to convince us about a “universe from nothing” (very interesting book to read BTW). But he is speaking as an atheist. Look at how Christian apologists answer this point.

Yes, it boils down to the poor science education we have in our schools. I have spoken with a university professor who teaches biology. After every introductory course on evolution he gets students coming up asking “Is that how evolution works? I have always been told that evolution proves that there is no God”.

Your last paragraph sums everything I have to say nicely. And the more I see threads like this, the more reason I have to doubt science regarding this topic. I see the same angles played, the same appeals, the same misdirection and the same wrong emphasis. I can only conclude that this is about ensuring compliance. Too bad. Perhaps University professors should be a bit more educated about students. I’ve discovered people, not referring to scientists or professors, are generally, honest and straightforward regarding this subject. They may not have a degree in anything but ‘connecting the dots,’ as they say, is quite simple for them.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I would say that a problematic approach in viewing evolution does exist in the American Church but I would still say it is pretty rare.= maybe more common than in Europe but still pretty rare.

Give or take a few misconceptions, isn’t evolution simply just a longer, wide-scale version of biological growth and development? I really don’t get what’s so evil about the idea. So our earliest ancestors were monkeys. Big deal. I don’t see these same adult Christians complaining about how they were once clueless, crybabies who can’t even flush the toilet.

Secondly, I have to wonder just how clueless the literalists are about the alternatives to evolution. You either take the Bible word for word or you just stubbornly insist on some obscure two-step version of mankind’s origins where you don’t take it all literal but reject evolution anyway because it’s, well, evolution.

Finally, literalists themselves just really have a lot to answer for. Their alternative effectively poses the possible existence of pretty much every mythological monster in and out of the Bible. I’d like to ask any resident biology expert on this thread regarding what the ecological/environmental implications would be if something like the Leviathan of Job or the Stymphalian Birds were actual, real-live animals. Won’t these things like mess up the food chain or alter the entire ecosystem?

 

[Hans_W]

Your last paragraph sums everything I have to say nicely. And the more I see threads like this, the more reason I have to doubt science regarding this topic. I see the same angles played, the same appeals, the same misdirection and the same wrong emphasis. I can only conclude that this is about ensuring compliance. Too bad. Perhaps University professors should be a bit more educated about students. I’ve discovered people, not referring to scientists or professors, are generally, honest and straightforward regarding this subject. They may not have a degree in anything but ‘connecting the dots,’ as they say, is quite simple for them.

Peace,
Ed

I have no idea of what you are driving at with your comment

This is what I wrote:

Yes, it boils down to the poor science education we have in our schools. I have spoken with a university professor who teaches biology. After every introductory course on evolution he gets students coming up asking “Is that how evolution works? I have always been told that evolution proves that there is no God”.

I wanted to highlight that young people often get the impression that the theory of evolution is not just a scientific theory, but at the same time a kind of proof that God does not exist. This could be partly because they were not taught proper science in school, or, more likely, that they grew up in a fundamentalist environment. Once they learn what evolution really means, they are surprised that there is nothing in evolution which is intrinsically anti-God or anti-religion.

BTW, my conversion was with an American professor of a well-known university, who happens to be a Christian.

Could you please explain what you mean by your comments on doubting science, scientists and professors.

 

[RACJ]

“I really don’t get what’s so evil about the idea. So our earliest ancestors were monkeys. Big deal.” Lost Wanderer

No, according to Darwinists, our earliest ancestors were protozoan rebels with a cause!