M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
That’s not a good objection. One could teach of a higher power without going into specifics.
- Status
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
I am not sure if this contradicts you or not. I need to read it more closely. I’m pretty sure it drives the point home that reason can help us to understand Him. I need to read it more carefully tho before I open my yap.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Yes, but you also had this minor disagreement with Giordano Bruno and Galilei.And why would you be surprised, Hitetlen?
We’re not literalists or fundamentalists.
We’re Catholics…you remember…the folks who brought you the Renaissance.
M
Melchior
Guest
The hysteria aginast ID is ridiculous. The opositio jsut keeps repeating talking points such as “ID is not science”. Why because evolutionists say it is not?
If an archeaologist goes on a dig and find ancient pots and and arrowheads and says the evidence show that these items have a designer but we are not sure who it is at this point. Is that not science. A scientist recognizing the obvious is as valid (actually more so) than the theory that Wales evolved from cow like mammals.
Not allowing ID is simply narrow-minded Darwinists throwing a fit that their status as gods is being challenged.
No one has made a coherent argument that ID is not science.
Interesting article about the hysteria in the scientific community.
Mel
If an archeaologist goes on a dig and find ancient pots and and arrowheads and says the evidence show that these items have a designer but we are not sure who it is at this point. Is that not science. A scientist recognizing the obvious is as valid (actually more so) than the theory that Wales evolved from cow like mammals.
Not allowing ID is simply narrow-minded Darwinists throwing a fit that their status as gods is being challenged.
No one has made a coherent argument that ID is not science.
Interesting article about the hysteria in the scientific community.
Mel
J
jim1130
Guest
People should send their kids to Catholic schools so they do not have to worry about Church-State isues. When I was in parochial school, I was taught about evolution, but I was also taught that God is the creator. Thanks to this schooling, I do not get worked-up about evolution like many Christian brethren. I know that I did not come from an ape.
D
David_Zampino
Guest
You make an interesting point that perhaps many people miss. Many of the people who seem to be pushing “Intelligent Design” are themselves “Young-Earth Creationists”. I question if they are truly interested in a serious ID debate. “Intelligent Design” does NOT necessarily equate to “Young-Earth Creationism” – and I suspect that there are many ID advocates who resent their serious issue being hijacked in this way.
Blessings,
M
mikew262
Guest
Ok, I’ll try this one more time. IMO, ID is a plausible alternative theory that bares mentioning in a science class along side evolution and other theories that may reasonably explain how we came to be. ID says that a highly intelligent being or force set things in motion because things in this universe are way to complex to leave it to chance. It is not religion, unless you bring God into it, which should be avoided.
Now obviously, most of us believe that intelligent being is God; others may think it’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Lord help us!). Still others may think it’s something else. If you explain ID as God, then, yes, you may have problem here. If you keep it generic, then I don’t think it is a problem. If a student asks if ID is God, then the teacher needs to explain that God could be one explanation for ID, but in this class it’s not to be considered the only possible explanation.
This particular judge (if I have my facts straight) I believe is a left wing Clinton appointee. He considered it religion, and we certainly can’t have God mentioned anywhere near a public institution (I’m being sarcastic). The flaw here is that if ID is worded appropriately, then religion is not a player. Hopefully, somebody will appeal this and get it overturned.
Now obviously, most of us believe that intelligent being is God; others may think it’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Lord help us!). Still others may think it’s something else. If you explain ID as God, then, yes, you may have problem here. If you keep it generic, then I don’t think it is a problem. If a student asks if ID is God, then the teacher needs to explain that God could be one explanation for ID, but in this class it’s not to be considered the only possible explanation.
This particular judge (if I have my facts straight) I believe is a left wing Clinton appointee. He considered it religion, and we certainly can’t have God mentioned anywhere near a public institution (I’m being sarcastic). The flaw here is that if ID is worded appropriately, then religion is not a player. Hopefully, somebody will appeal this and get it overturned.
S
steveandersen
Guest
Yes but the thing with Galileo was not over what he was teaching but that he was teaching it after he promised not to.Yes, but you also had this minor disagreement with Giordano Bruno and Galilei.
The poor Pope had a reformation on his hands and internal dissent from officials who thought much the way some modern IDers do. He could not be seen to favor his old friend Galileo. Especially after his words were put into the mouth of the Simplicius character. (You don’t tug on superman’s cape etc etc)
Remember that this was before we had an understanding of gravity or any of the other tools of classical mechanics to explain how we could be standing on a rotating body and not feel it. Heliocentrism may have appeared obvious to someone making careful observations of the motion of the planets but a lot of it defies common sense if you don’t have a mechanism to ansewer some of teh questions it rasies.
As for Bruno,"…a man of great capacity, with infinite knowledge, but not a trace of religion." By the time the Inquisition got to him he had already been excommunicated by the Calvinists and the Lutherans (and the Anglicans hadn’t been too happy with him either IIRC) so don’t lay his troubles entirely at the Church’s feet. The man was a gadfly and a free thinker in a time of violent religious turmoil and all the religious authorities were products of their time sad to say. Even still his execution had nothing to do with his science but with his philosophy. (It was the Calvinists who excommunicated him for his science.)
In his defense (and Galileo’s) the Church has always seemed to have a problem with satire, especially that of a scatological or obscene nature. Sorry to say.
S
steveandersen
Guest
Melchior said:
Judge Jones and the various witnesses for the plaintives made many very good arguments.
In general:
(1) ID is not falsifiable
(2) Supernatural mechanisms are not testable. In fact there is no proposed mechanism to test.
(3) There is no data to support it
Therefore it is not a valid scientific theory. I’m not sure what your exception to this is?
There are rules to things. Scientists don’t just make stuff up as they go along. Every theory has to meet the same criteria. That is what science is. The whole point of the process is that it a theory must be defensible, internally consistent, rigorous, and match the preponderance of the evidence.
O
Orogeny
Guest
MichaelTDoyle said:
After reading the post you responded to, I think I didn’t make myself as clear as I should have. What I meant to say is that our faith is not dependent upon science. We don’t need science to prove to us that God is the creator of everything.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
The problem that ID has in general is that there is no evidence to support it. Therefore, it is a theory only as the term is used in common usage, not scientific usage.
You need to check your sources again. Judge Jones was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2002 and is a Lutheran.
You almost got it right with your opinion as to why ID is flawed. It’s not because it isn’t worded properly, it is because it HAS to be worded in one particular way. ID is still ID if you identify the designer.
Peace
Tim
M
mikew262
Guest
You are correct, Judge Jones was appointed by Bush. My mistake. I still disagree with his ruling however.
The evidence lies in the complexity of the universe right down to the human body, the molecule, and the atom. Can we p(name removed by moderator)oint who or what the intelligent designer was? No, not yet (in a scientific manner anyway). Only my faith tells me who it is at this point.
O
oat_soda
Guest
i think the church needs to better catechise what we can answer with modern science, and what we can answer with religion. also the point that reason can never contradict faith but science and truth all have their origin and end in God himself who is truth. we should never be threated by science because we have faith that God so ordered the universe that it should always point to himself. every scientific discovery unravels the mystery of creation and of God.
for instance, modern science can’t answer questions like what is morally acceptable or why am i here. so my problem is that if we hold that the goal of education is finding the truth, why are we afraid of teaching about God in our public schools when we know that science can never explain existence itself or being or our intellect? these things are outside the sphere that science can answer. but, it doesn’t mean we can’t attempt to understand them or explain them.
i think people who are threatened by evolution are those that hold to an over literalistic interpretation of the genisis account.
for instance, modern science can’t answer questions like what is morally acceptable or why am i here. so my problem is that if we hold that the goal of education is finding the truth, why are we afraid of teaching about God in our public schools when we know that science can never explain existence itself or being or our intellect? these things are outside the sphere that science can answer. but, it doesn’t mean we can’t attempt to understand them or explain them.
i think people who are threatened by evolution are those that hold to an over literalistic interpretation of the genisis account.
J
jim1130
Guest
oat soda:
Has science ever figured out how Jesus walked on water? I know that we always try to find answers to everything and try to rationalize everything, but there are also mysteries that are not necessarily solvable.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Actually, he is a conservative, appointed by Dubya.
Z
zian
Guest
um, no. Because it simply isn’t. It still could be true, but it just isn’t science. What Tim, Steve, Phil and Alec have said repeatedly in this and other threads. I agree with Tim’s earlier point - go ahead and talk about this elsewhere in the curriculum, just not in science classes.
Arrowheads and potsherds can be reasonably inferred to have come from a material designer. Therefore the nature of this evidence can supply specific information related to their maker that can lead to a testable hypothesis to be supported or refuted by further discovered material evidence. Not the same as ID.
At least not one that you agree with. More’s the pity.
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
oat soda:
Best to stay in the ark of the Church and let school’s teach the 3 Rs. imho
Because human beings constantly make mistakes, usually in favor of their fallen nature. Only the Pope has the promise of Christ to Peter so we have to rely on the CCC. Public schools --and even many Catholic colleges from what i read in these forums–teach whatever way the wind blows. It would be too dangerous to let the gov’t teach about what we need to get close to Him.
Best to stay in the ark of the Church and let school’s teach the 3 Rs. imho
M
Melchior
Guest
M
Melchior
Guest
Everyone go read Darwin’s Black Box. Lather rinse and repeat. 
Mel
Mel
O
Orogeny
Guest
That is all ID has done with evolution! There is NO evidence for ID.
What were you saying about impugning the other side?
Peace
Tim
- Status