H
Hans_W
Guest
It’s NOT an either/or question. Didn’t I make that clear enough.
It’s the religious fundamentalists and the militant atheist who like to see it that way.
UK bans teaching of creationism in any school which receives public funding
- Status
It’s the religious fundamentalists and the militant atheist who like to see it that way.
H
Hans_W
Guest
I have been interrupted when I wrote post #95
Here is what I wanted to say (sorry about the repeats):
All children ask these “why?” questions all the times, which can get annoying to parents sometimes. When they grow up, most people get out of the habit of asking. I suppose they loose interest in how things function and work.
Scientist don’t loose this curiosity. They want to probe deeper, want to know more about the world. You, Ed, obviously don’t fall into this category. Most people couldn’t care less if the earth goes round the sun or if the sun goes round the earth. But there are some of us who want to find out how things work, and why it’s this way and not that.
I am not concerned about the older ones; it doesn’t matter if they believe the universe is 6000 or 13,600,000,000 years old. Who cares? But there are young ones who want to know. They don’t need to become scientists, but they are curious, they want to learn about the world. If they have been brainwashed with fundamentalism, then they have to decide one day: God or science? They have to go one way or the other. They can’t live with both.
That’s why I think that good science education is vital. If you know what science is all about, then you see that there is no conflict. Intelligent Design, Bible studies, teaching of moral principles go into the religion classes. These teachings are important, but have nothing to do with science.
Here is what I wanted to say (sorry about the repeats):
All children ask these “why?” questions all the times, which can get annoying to parents sometimes. When they grow up, most people get out of the habit of asking. I suppose they loose interest in how things function and work.
Scientist don’t loose this curiosity. They want to probe deeper, want to know more about the world. You, Ed, obviously don’t fall into this category. Most people couldn’t care less if the earth goes round the sun or if the sun goes round the earth. But there are some of us who want to find out how things work, and why it’s this way and not that.
I am not concerned about the older ones; it doesn’t matter if they believe the universe is 6000 or 13,600,000,000 years old. Who cares? But there are young ones who want to know. They don’t need to become scientists, but they are curious, they want to learn about the world. If they have been brainwashed with fundamentalism, then they have to decide one day: God or science? They have to go one way or the other. They can’t live with both.
That’s why I think that good science education is vital. If you know what science is all about, then you see that there is no conflict. Intelligent Design, Bible studies, teaching of moral principles go into the religion classes. These teachings are important, but have nothing to do with science.
E
Estevao
Guest
Yeah well one thing I like about Behe is that he’s rather indifferent to the whole religion of darwinism that makes the leap of faith that the only game in town to explain the diversity of life is random mutation and natural selection. I hope you weren’t implying that he’s a nutcase.
H
Hans_W
Guest
Yes, Behe as a scientist qualifies himself into the group of nutcases supporting Intelligent Design as science.
Behe is not indifferent to the evolution debate, but is a founding member of the ID movement. BTW, the theory of evolution is not religion, but part of science.
This thread started off with an interesting topic, followed by some stimulating posts and discussion, mainly in support of the statement in the original thread.
It has since deteriorated into a series of silly arguments on creationism vs evolution. I always thought that this dispute had been resolved and put away by us Catholics more than half a century ago.
A
anthony022071
Guest
By claiming that natural selection and genetic mutation produce the variety of species. Those processes do not have the power to produce species. NS is a process of elimination,not a creative process. And GM is very limited. It occurs with only a few traits such as hair color,eye color and resistance to disease,not with all the structural traits of all species. So it is illogical to say that the accumulation of millions of mutations over millions of years have resulted in the variety of species or that all species have descended from a single ancestor. NS and GM don’t produce individual creatures so they cannot produce species,which consist of individual creatures. I know that evolutionists say that “individuals don’t evolve,populations evolve”,but that ignores the fact that populations exist as individuals that come into existence immediately. The only natural means by which new species can come into existence the same way that individual creatures come into existence - reproduction,which is an act of creation by God.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Uh, no. I’m smelling an anti-competitive philosophy underlying this statement, not science. Ever seen an inventor eliminate unnecessary parts when drafting their creations? How about a journalist or a novelist? Know how many drafts they make before the final publication?
For someone who calls evolution and natural selection illogical, you have an illogical understanding of creativity.
H
Hans_W
Guest
Is that what you want to teach children? In a science class?
Coming back to the title of this thread - Yes, teaching of creationism should be banned in any school, public and private.
At the same time I would advocate for good religious instruction.
E
edwest2
Guest
If I may add:
“295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.” Catechism of the Catholic Church
Peace,
Ed
H
Hans_W
Guest
And that’s how we see Theistic Evolution. God has been, and is constantly guiding this process.
R
RACJ
Guest
Oy vey, there you go doing it again! This is nihilism, not science! Science is like the manual teaching you how to properly fire a gun. It doesn’t tell you the reasons to shoot one.
Rob: Nihilism is the rejection of moral principles and religion. I am not a nihilist. What is your point, Monkey?
Uh-huh yet those synapses developed in a span of nine months inside yo momma.
Rob: Again, you deflect my query away. You know that two protozoa never got together, and produced a human baby, with a brain capable of firing 10 million billion synapses every second. To imagine that a directionless process produced all the positive mutations necessary to get to point Z (humanity), you have more faith than I could ever muster.
Your fear-mongering regarding the idea is what leads many atheists to go full-turbo with it even when it’s clear that their nihilism is just one way to perceive the evolutionary process.
Rob: Are you really blaming skeptics of evolution for the outrageous over-the-top reactions of allegedly “clinical” scientists?
R
RACJ
Guest
You seem like a real gentleman. But until I see evidence of partially-formed organisms that managed to survive without all the tools which they presently possess, I will believe that the entire theory is in crisis.
Which appeared first in primitive ancestors: hearts, brains, kidneys, colons, stomachs, livers, etc? You could continue this without limit. How did the hundreds or thousands or millions of vital structures in an organism come to exist without them all being in place at the same time?
H
Hans_W
Guest
This question is not addressed to me, but allow me to give my comment.You seem like a real gentleman. But until I see evidence of partially-formed organisms that managed to survive without all the tools which they presently possess, I will believe that the entire theory is in crisis.
Which appeared first in primitive ancestors: hearts, brains, kidneys, colons, stomachs, livers, etc? You could continue this without limit. How did the hundreds or thousands or millions of vital structures in an organism come to exist without them all being in place at the same time?
How do you expect your question to be answered to your satisfaction in a few lines? Armies of biologists have been working on those details for the last 150 years. Mountains of scientific papers and books have been written.
If you are sincere in your desire to know, then get an introductory book. There are hundreds written for the non-specialist. I strongly recommend Ken Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God”. It reads like a detective story, so exciting is the topic. Ken Miller is a Catholic.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
You’re still misunderstanding what evolutionary theory actually is. It’s not about advancement, but about change. Populations of animals that live in caves oftentimes show eyes which have actually “degraded” (reduced to simple light-sensing organs) or vanished altogether. That doesn’t make them “less evolved” than their relatives who live in the sunlight, just different.
It’s amazing how diverse the creatures of this world are - a testament to God’s creativity. We have several examples of creatures that live without kidneys, or brains, or lungs, or hearts. The evolutionary sequence of all of these structures is well understood, and in some cases have developed more than once (e.g. - cephalopods using copper vs fish using iron in their blood).Which appeared first in primitive ancestors: hearts, brains, kidneys, colons, stomachs, livers, etc? You could continue this without limit. How did the hundreds or thousands or millions of vital structures in an organism come to exist without them all being in place at the same time?
R
RACJ
Guest
I would not believe TOE even if it was palatably presented in the classroom, without all the lies, saying what you have said here: “Testament to God’s creativity”. You sound like a quasi-creationist with that line. The point is not that certain organisms can exist without certain structures. It is that these organisms will NEVER evolve what they lack. They are complete as is now.
The mention of the thousands of biologists who have pieced together parts of the puzzle only points to the fact that all the geniuses of the world working on explanations cannot do what Dawkins says that NOTHING can do: Create a living organism. When all the dazzling explanations are distilled, what you have left is conjecture. Sorry!
A
anthony022071
Guest
Before we say that God has made something happen,we should know for certain that it really happened. The evolution story cannot be shown to have happened from historical records and it is not logically necessary that it happened.
A
anthony022071
Guest
Yes. That disallows for the idea of causation that goes with evolution theory. Scientists say that the processes of evolution is unguided and random or deterministic.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
Whether one accepts evolutionary theory or not, the teaching of the Church is clear: God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. I simply also happen to think that one can learn more about the artist not just by studying his finished works, but his technique as well. Do you not believe that God can act through processes which we might come to understand? Or is God limited to miracles?
And evolutionary theory makes no claim on being an explanation of the origin of life. Anyone who claims it does is going beyond the bounds of science into ideology and philosophy. Would you fire a mechanic because he can’t make a decent omelet?The mention of the thousands of biologists who have pieced together parts of the puzzle only points to the fact that all the geniuses of the world working on explanations cannot do what Dawkins says that NOTHING can do: Create a living organism. When all the dazzling explanations are distilled, what you have left is conjecture. Sorry!
M
Monkey1976
Guest
We have a complete evolutionary history of several modern species, (e.g. - whales and dolphins). While there is still some controversy regarding the most technical details of the mechanisms behind evolutionary development, there is no controversy at all that species have developed through time. It is as solid a principle as gravity. We don’t yet have a complete theory that describes gravity at all scales, but we know enough to make useful deductions and predictions about it. If one wants to deny evolution, all one has to do is find a single fossil of an anatomically modern creature that dates to an age where evolutionary theory says it should not exist: A humpback whale that was preyed upon by Megalodon, a human skeleton alongside a dinosaur, even a single bone that dated to 4.5 billion years old. Any one of these would place the discoverer in the history books, win a Nobel Prize, and guarantee nigh-unlimited funding for life. Contrary to popular opinion, scientists dream of upsetting something as entrenched as evolution.
Without evolution, how do you account for the total absence of modern forms in earlier strata, and the near-total lack of early forms in the modern day?
A
anthony022071
Guest
God’s creative action is supernatural,but it is not miraculous. It does not go against the usual course of nature. It is the act of making things come into existence.
God does act through natural processes,but that does not mean that we should believe he created species according to way that the theory of evolution says they were produced. The theory is full of non sequiturs. We don’t have to reconcile the doctrine of creation with a theory that is not even logical in its assessment of natural causation.
Evolution theory does claim to explain the origin of species. The theory does not just describe how species have supposedly changed,it describes how species supposedly came to exist from prior species. To claim that a species evolved or descended from a prior species is to claim that it originated from the prior species. In evolution theory,change and development dovetails into origination.
See post 103.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Yet you logically reach the same conclusion a nihilist would have regarding evolution, the same process any theist can easily attribute to God. See what I’m getting at here?
No that’s you. The fact that you don’t believe in the possibilities posed by evolution but turn a blind eye to parallel ideas in human development speaks loads. I repeat: You don’t believe we can get from A to Z in a billion years but easily believe going from A to Z in a span of nine months.
Yep because your camp’s the one:
- Threatening people with eternal damnation.
- Imposing a moral obligation to believe the Genesis myth
- Essentially making yourselves Popes of science
- Status