How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Just because the Pope doesn't approve something doesn't mean it has to be doctrinally accepted by all Catholics.

No one is saying it is like that either, but you must still recognize that the Pope has a lot of power and people gladly let him influence them
You must also admit that Catholics have seem more reluctant to get on this ID train than, say Creationists for instance?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Let's get something straight. Just because the Pope doesn't approve something doesn't mean it has to be doctrinally accepted by all Catholics. It just carries with it a great deal of influence. And the Pope didn't condemn heliocentrism. He merely discouraged the teaching of it because it would have resulted in the "Enlightenment" in the 15th century. Remember also that they had just gotten over Luther...

I wasn't trying to say that all Catholics automatically follow what the Pope says. I just meant what he has to say would be important to them, and most Catholics would probably give careful thought to what the Vatican says. (I don't know this for sure but it seems probable to me.)

[Count Comfect]

Most Catholics do, or are supposed to, follow Papal dictates. That would be what the concept of Pope as Supreme Father would indicate (Il Papa), and also the doctrine of papal infallibility (developed in rather late, admittedly, in the 1800s AD). Now, they don't necessarily, and particularly on matters like science rather than doctrinal issues. But part of the Catholicity of the Catholic Church is being headed by the Pope. As regards the topic, though, I'm not sure that his pronouncements either way constitute real "evidence."

[Nurvingiel]

I agree that's not evidence, but I don't think anyone was saying that. It was just a slightly OT but interesting discussion. (Funny how that keeps happening... )

[brownjenkins]

i think the most important point is that strong religious beliefs and evolution can coexist

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Most Catholics do, or are supposed to, follow Papal dictates. That would be what the concept of Pope as Supreme Father would indicate (Il Papa), and also the doctrine of papal infallibility (developed in rather late, admittedly, in the 1800s AD). Now, they don't necessarily, and particularly on matters like science rather than doctrinal issues. But part of the Catholicity of the Catholic Church is being headed by the Pope. As regards the topic, though, I'm not sure that his pronouncements either way constitute real "evidence."

Just in case anyone was wondering when the Pope's teaching is dogman and must be followed:
"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable (see Denziger §1839).
-- Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, chapter iv"

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i think the most important point is that strong religious beliefs and evolution can coexist

well i think we are aware of that, C.S Lewis was a theistic evolutionist.

[Rían]

Jonathan - here's some links for you Sorry they're so late, I'm just still kinda weary of this topic for now *wistful smilie*

http://www.iscid.org/

http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...d=view&id=2177

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork....galopinion.htm

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_...cts_062102.pdf

Anyway, just a few to look at. As I said, it's in its infancy, and I think it's worthy of further scientific exploration. And so do many others.

[Jonathan]

Thanks RÃ*an!

I'll have a look at the links as soon as I have time to spare.

[Rían]

You're welcome No rush!

[Cirdan]

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision

They declared ID unconstitutional and unscientific. The IDers must appeal to the US supreme court or it's "lights out" on ID in public schools.

Survival of the fittest, baby!

[Insidious Rex]

Thank god...

Is there a chance the supreme court will over turn this? I wonder what they will try next? Can they go further stealth then "Intelligent Design"?

[Rían]

[Cartoon narrator's voice]Who knows what "they" will do next?[/cartoon narrator's voice]

And if evolutionists are so fond of survival of the fittest, then I hope they all buy guns and shoot any disabled or elderly person, who are draining the resources of us fit people.

I don't think ID is ready to be taught in schools; I think Pennsylvania went too far too soon.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And if evolutionists are so fond of survival of the fittest, then I hope they all buy guns and shoot any disabled or elderly person, who are draining the resources of us fit people.

Ummm.... I'll attribute the hyperbole to disappointment.

I don't think ID is ready to be taught in schools; I think Pennsylvania went too far too soon.

There still an openening in Philosophy class for an untestable hypothesis.

There would be a slim chance that the US court would overturn it. Citing the Lemon test gives precedent and that would have to be shown to not apply. Kind of a stretch. Still the IDers have lots of cash to spend on legal challenges. They just have to decide whether to leave the door open or go for the big score.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

Ummm.... I'll attribute the hyperbole to disappointment.

No, it's a serious statement, made to point out what I think are flaws with how the evolution model fits (or doesn't fit) reality. It's so obvious to me that there is MORE in life than survival of the fittest, and statements like that illustrate that point.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, it's a serious statement, made to point out what I think are flaws with how the evolution model fits (or doesn't fit) reality. It's so obvious to me that there is MORE in life than survival of the fittest, and statements like that illustrate that point.

that may be true, but we need to address those flaws via scientific means in science class... which ultimately means observable phenomenon

[Count Comfect]

No, Rian, there is a societal value to allowing old people to live, based on their experience, the support they can give to younger people, and so on. "Fittest" doesn't just apply to individuals, nor does it just apply to "fit" in the sense of physical ability. Our species would be far less "fit" compared to other species if we killed all old people.

The decision seems well reasoned. "ID’s “official position� does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed
designer is God" (p.25)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

No, Rian, there is a societal value to allowing old people to live, based on their experience, the support they can give to younger people, and so on. "Fittest" doesn't just apply to individuals, nor does it just apply to "fit" in the sense of physical ability. Our species would be far less "fit" compared to other species if we killed all old people.

So old people have no intrinsic value in themselves - they just have societal value? Is that your opinion?

The decision seems well reasoned. "ID’s “official position� does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed
designer is God" (p.25)

So what? So when does science rely on unfounded associations? The whole point is that who the designer IS doesn't matter; it's whether or not what we see in our environment can be determined to be design-based or not, based on ideas that are being developed and fleshed-out, despite determined efforts by the opposition to squash this interesting area of research. IT DOESN'T MATTER who the designer is or isn't; what is being looked at is this: are there measureable characteristics of design; if so, what are they and how can they be quantified; and can we find these in nature or not?

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Rian

So old people have no intrinsic value in themselves - they just have societal value? Is that your opinion?

Sigh, please do not twist my words out of their context. You said that if it is survival of the fittest, we ought to just shoot old people. I said that that wouldn't actually be survival of the fittest. THAT is what my societal value point was about. It has nothing to do with actually believing old people have no intrinsic value - nor did I say so. I happen to believe old people are wonderful.

Originally Posted by Rian

So what? So when does science rely on unfounded associations? The whole point is that who the designer IS doesn't matter; it's whether or not what we see in our environment can be determined to be design-based or not, based on ideas that are being developed and fleshed-out, despite determined efforts by the opposition to squash this interesting area of research. IT DOESN'T MATTER who the designer is or isn't; what is being looked at is this: are there measureable characteristics of design; if so, what are they and how can they be quantified; and can we find these in nature or not?

A) For the courts, yes it DOES matter who the designer is, because if it is God (and read the Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute - the word "theistic" pops up) then it is establishment of religion - and thus unconstitutional.
B) Scientifically, YES, it DOES matter who the designer is, because the designer is SUPERnatural. Science looks for natural causes. The Intelligent Designer is supernatural. ID is not science.
And "interesting area of research"? The ideas have come unchanged since Thomas Aquinas (who, by the way, used it as evidence of God's existence). The evidence is 19th century in origin (flagella, eyes, etc) - where it was used as evidence of God's existence. Research is hardly applicable, except legal research as to how to avoid the courts.

[Cirdan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, it's a serious statement, made to point out what I think are flaws with how the evolution model fits (or doesn't fit) reality. It's so obvious to me that there is MORE in life than survival of the fittest, and statements like that illustrate that point.

There's more to ToE than that too. Let's not be reductionistas.