Can the Bible be used to justify/prove evolution
Kid Cool
the bible could be used to support evolution?
Kid Cool
r norman
The Bible is not a peer-reviewed journal, so it cannot be considered
part of the primary literature of science. At best it is a secondary
source.
Chris Thompson
news:Os-dnckdv4e...@comcast.com:
> Reading the posts about Lev 19:19 got me thinking, what other quotes
> from the bible could be used to support evolution?
>
> Kid Cool
>
>
>
What on earth gave you the idea that any passages from the bible have
anything at all to do with evolution?
Chris
KelvynT
In the hands of the right creationist, any of them.
Kelvyn
Peter H. Proctor
Genesis has two examples of "artificial" selection. In one
place, Laban promises his son-in-law Jacob all the future spotted
animals to be born in his flocks. He then removes the spotted animals
to elsewhere. He thus selects against spotted offspring in the flocks
Jacob has care of.
In turn, Jacob develops a magical technique for making
breeding animals give birth to spotted offspring. But the bible
describes how he only uses this technique on the stronger animals,
thus selecting for stronger offspring. It is a small step from this
to "natural" selection.
Dr P
>
>Kid Cool
>
Eros
> Reading the posts about Lev 19:19 got me thinking, what other quotes from
> the bible could be used to support evolution?
>
> Kid Cool
Genesis is a start;- "Let the *earth* bring forth..." should have been a hint.
EROS.
Earle Jones
"Kid Cool" <kccsubATc...@giganews.com> wrote:
*
The bible was written by bronze-age goatherders and otherwise
uneducated peasants a couple of thousand years ago.
Evolution was described by Darwin, Wallace, and others in the mid-19th
century.
I don't think you will find anything in the bible that speaks to
evolution, and if you do, it is a fluke.
But then, most of what you read in the bible is a fluke.
earle
*
"It (the Bible) is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it;
and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history;
and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity;
and upwards of a thousand lies."
--Samuel Langhorne Clemens (1835 - 1910) "Mark Twain"
John Wilkins
We did this a month or so ago. I recall it all began with Ecc 3:19
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
kegwasher
Asking if the bible could be used to justify evolution is like asking if the
lord of the rings could be used to justify evolution.
stew dean
> the bible could be used to support evolution?
>
> Kid Cool
Why not use it to teach chemistry as well?
Stew Dean
Peter H. Proctor
<washer_...@t-online.de> wrote:
>Asking if the bible could be used to justify evolution is like asking if the
>lord of the rings could be used to justify evolution.
The following passage from Genesis describes two instances of
"artificial selection" ( which is where Darwin got "natural
selection").
Genesis Chapter 30
" 31
"What should I pay you?" Laban asked. Jacob answered: "You do not have
to pay me anything outright. I will again pasture and tend your flock,
if you do this one thing for me:
32
11 go through your whole flock today and remove from it every dark
animal among the sheep and every spotted or speckled one among the
goats. Only such animals shall be my wages.
33
In the future, whenever you check on these wages of mine, let my
honesty testify against me: any animal in my possession that is not a
speckled or spotted goat, or a dark sheep, got there by theft!"
34
"Very well," agreed Laban. "Let it be as you say."
35
12 That same day Laban removed the streaked and spotted he-goats and
all the speckled and spotted she-goats, all those with some white on
them, as well as the fully dark-colored sheep; these he left. . . in
charge of his sons.
36
Then he put a three days' journey between himself and Jacob, while
Jacob continued to pasture the rest of Laban's flock. "
-----Note that Laban "selects" out and removes the spotted, etc.
animals so that the offspring of these will not appear in Jacobs
flocks and thus go to him.
To get even with Laban, Jacob then uses a magic process for
producing spotted animals involving showing animals in heat "rods".
. But look how he applies it: to select out the hardier animals:
"41
Moreover, whenever the hardier animals were in heat, Jacob would set
the rods in the troughs in full view of these animals, so that they
mated by the rods;
42
but with the weaker animals he would not put the rods there. So the
feeble animals would go to Laban, but the sturdy ones to Jacob. "
Dr P
Lilith
Mmm...but it could justify sexual selection for men with facial hair.
Hubba hubba. The problem is, such choices...
Kid Cool
"stew dean" <ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2b68957a.04011...@posting.google.com...
powerful arguement to show that the Bible has examples of Natural Selection
and proof of evolution? I won't disagree with anyone who says the bible has
no relevance in discussing evolution, but if it can be shown that the Bible
really does support evolution, then it makes the case that much stronger, by
undercutting the Creationists.
Let's face it the Creationist have two basic arguements:
1) Read your Bible;
2) All the tired claims that continually resurface and get shot down every
day on this forum (see Mark Issac's Creationist Claims List on
talkorigins.org, very nice work Mark).
It was SunTzu who said: know thy enemy as you know thyself, let them dance
around Lev 19:19. I know they will, but it will be nice to see them
undercutting the Bible.
Kid Cool
Eros
You mean like turning wine into blood? :)
EROS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We're going to have the best-educated American people in the world."
-- US Vice President Dan Quayle, 9/21/88
stew dean
I can understand your approach of taking their fight into their
territory. My view is you might win a battle but loose the war. If we
drop science and objectivity in favour of what is essentialy anacdotal
and subjective evidence then how can we justify using objectivity
later?
The creationists will keep on making the same claims - and I feel the
best responce is to continue to calmly explain why they are wrong and
point them to references. If they are open minded they will read up on
both sides and reach a conclusion (which I feel is fairly one sided).
If they are close minded then, again, cool calm reasoning is probably
the best way to gently open their mind. I feel sticking to objectivity
is the way to go.
Stew Dean
Staffan S
While I agree with what is said above, I believe that you are missing
an important point, and it has to do with the fact that science and
religion aren't the opposite of each other. Rather, they describe
different dimensions of a person's opinions of the world. You can be a
Christian *and* support the mainstream scientific view, or you can be
a Christian who rejects evolution along with a lot of the other
advances of science. You could even be an atheist and a creationist at
the same time (I *think* RR qualifies as one of those). The point I'm
trying to make is that you can look at arguments from the Bible from a
scientific angle or from a religious angle.
From the scientific point of view there's no evidence for evolution to
be found in the Bible. Absolutely none. The stories just are too badly
documented and vague to be the basis for any kind of scientific
conclusion.
From a religious point of view, there *are* passages that you can
interpret to support the theory of evolution. That is important,
because it is an opportunity to influence those who believe that the
Bible is God's true Word, handed down from (or inspired by) Him.
Christians generally agree that there are two ways to learn about God:
the Bible and God's creation, "the Book of nature". If you can show
that the Bible support what scientists say about the Book of Nature, I
think that you could at least begin to reach the minds of the
creationists. Maybe not the die-hard pastors, but a lot of their
congregations. Perhaps even some of the children that are brought up
in literalist families, will be able to keep their faith instead of
rejecting it when they grow up and find out that reality contradicts
what they learned in Sunday school. Whether that is good or bad, is up
to everyone to decide for himself.
Staffan Sjoberg
John Thomas Grisham
If I'm to believe the statements made on talk.origins, then the
American public is the poorest evolutionary educated people in the
world. If this is so, it is because Naturalistic Evolution is the only
form of evolution that can be taught in U.S. public schools.
Catholic nations are teaching "Pope-approved" Theistic evolution to
most the world. We've no clue what the Islamic nations are teaching.
There's probably nothing of substance being taught in the former
Soviet Union. That leaves mostly the populations of China, Southeast
Asia, Japan and India with whatever the political situation dictates
should be taught. What I keep hearing from this group's contributors
is that they're all getting a better evolution education than in the
U.S., where Naturalistic Evolution is dictated by the courts.
If that's all true, then there is either something wrong with the
students, the teachers or the subject. I contend that students are
students. I also contend that teachers are watched so they only teach
Naturalistic Evolution. Which forces me to conclude that there must be
something incredibly unconvincing about Naturalistic Evolution. And
furthermore, it is this lack of convincibility that perpetuates the
Creationist movement.
As long as Naturalistic Evolution is mandated by the U.S. courts and
radically expoused by members in the scientific community, the
Creationists thrive as a suppressed minority. Kid Cool is looking for
a solution threatening the status quo (the authority figures can't
allow that!). You know what they say, "If you're not part of the
solution, then you're part of the problem".
JTG 1/13/04
Thomas H. Faller
Pretty amazing analysis. So America and most countries are being
dumbed down by Naturalistic Evolution. So where do all the
scientists and researchers get their education to successfully do
genetic research, oil exploration, agricultural development, medical
research and earth reseource exploration? Are all of them receiving
Secret Creationist Classes to get the skills for their jobs? Are
they using Supernaturalist Science to invoke Higher Powers for the
answers? Do you want to tell me, a former exploration geophysicist
for Exxon that my work didn't have anything to do with the theory
of evolution?
Tom Faller
Cubist
> the bible could be used to support evolution?
that the Bible isn't really a scientific document, hence can't really
support (or deny!) evolution. Having said that, I think Genesis 1 has
a trio of nice, juicy passages...
Gen 1:11 -- And God said, *Let the earth bring forth* grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose
seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. (emphasis added)
Gen 1:20 -- And God said, *Let the waters bring forth* abundantly the
moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth
in the open firmament of heaven. (emphasis added)
Gen 1:24 -- And God said, *Let the earth bring forth* the living
creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the
earth after his kind: and it was so. (emphasis added)
Sounds to me like God didn't really perform the actual hands-on
*work* of Creation... instead, He delegated the job to mindless
natural forces. Evolution, anyone?
Dana Tweedy
"John Thomas Grisham" <jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
news:1e9d6178.0401...@posting.google.com...
snipping
>
> As long as Naturalistic Evolution is mandated by the U.S. courts and
> radically expoused by members in the scientific community, the
> Creationists thrive as a suppressed minority.
"Naturalistic Evolution" as such, is not mandated by the US courts.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Science, by it's very nature, is
"naturalistic", in that it doesn't allow appeals to supernatural causes.
Therefore if you are opposed to naturalistic explanations being taught, you
must oppose science, not any particular theory of science. Evolution is
taught in science classes because it's a well supported scientific theory,
not because the US courts say it must be taught.
>Kid Cool is looking for
> a solution threatening the status quo (the authority figures can't
> allow that!).
That's a common claim by Creationists, but it's not true. It's not a
matter of challenging the "status quo", or authority figures. Creationism
isn't challenging the status quo, it's challenging the basic underpinnings
of science itself.
> You know what they say, "If you're not part of the
> solution, then you're part of the problem".
In this case the problem is, how can we prevent religious extremists from
gutting scientific education?
DJT
Kid Cool
Staffan S
You seem to claim that the US educational system is special in that it
is the only one that teaches "Naturalistic Evolution". I challenge you
to substantiate that claim, or clarify what you really mean.
Staffan S
dave e
> the bible could be used to support evolution?
>
> Kid Cool
The Bible can be, and has been, used to support any set of ideas you
need it to support. Even contradictory ideas.
Dave
AC
Kid Cool <kccsubATc...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
> "stew dean" <ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2b68957a.04011...@posting.google.com...
>> "Kid Cool" <kccsubATc...@giganews.com> wrote in message
> news:<Os-dnckdv4e...@comcast.com>...
>> > Reading the posts about Lev 19:19 got me thinking, what other quotes
> from
>> > the bible could be used to support evolution?
>> >
>> > Kid Cool
>>
>> Why not use it to teach chemistry as well?
>>
>> Stew Dean
>>
> Since the Creationist use the bible to attack evolution, wouldn't it be a
> powerful arguement to show that the Bible has examples of Natural Selection
> and proof of evolution?
No, in either case it is ridiculous to take a cosmological myth that is
3,000+ years old and try to use it to demonstrate or falsify a scientific
theory on the origins of life.
> I won't disagree with anyone who says the bible has
> no relevance in discussing evolution, but if it can be shown that the Bible
> really does support evolution, then it makes the case that much stronger, by
> undercutting the Creationists.
All I could see such an attempt would be is little more than quote-mining
the Bible to find passages which *seem* to support evolution. Since the
authors of the Bible very likely (by that I mean almost assuredly) did not
understand evolution, beyond the basic ideas of heredity (and even that, in
the Old Testament is questionable), such would not be a reflection of the
authors.
Virtually all the Christians I know who accept evolution do not think that
the Bible should be used as a science text at all. That is not, to their
minds, its purpose.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Earle Jones
lil...@umich.edu (Lilith) wrote:
*
"Hubba hubba"???
You're older than I thought you were!
earle
*
John Thomas Grisham
All I'm saying is that you can't have it both ways.
I keep reading posts that say Americans don't know evolution. Well as
of this moment, the only thing taught in any public school in the
United States is Naturalistic Evolution. If Americans aren't learning
it, then what can you suggest? Ultra-Authoritarian Naturalistic
Evolution? Brainwashing? Torture?
There's no other country held to a Constitutional authority to teach
Naturalistic Evolution and if that's not getting the results, then I
don't see grounds for anyone to complain about it. Certainly, you
realize that Theistic Evolution is being taught in the Catholic
countries and I don't hear anyone in the scientific community
complaining about it. Just the opposite, I hear posters saying that
outside the U.S. people are well educated in evolution.
I suspect that the assertion that Americans are poorly educated in
evolution is a lie, but It's nearly impossible to prove a relative
measurement without all the data. It's a little hard to conclude what
the relative understanding of evolution is by the billions of people
living on this planet at this time without a comprehensive census.
JTG 1/14/03
John Thomas Grisham
> "John Thomas Grisham" <jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in message
> news:1e9d6178.0401...@posting.google.com...
> snipping
>
>
> >
> > As long as Naturalistic Evolution is mandated by the U.S. courts and
> > radically expoused by members in the scientific community, the
> > Creationists thrive as a suppressed minority.
>
> "Naturalistic Evolution" as such, is not mandated by the US courts.
> Evolution is a scientific theory. Science, by it's very nature, is
> "naturalistic", in that it doesn't allow appeals to supernatural causes.
> Therefore if you are opposed to naturalistic explanations being taught, you
> must oppose science, not any particular theory of science. Evolution is
> taught in science classes because it's a well supported scientific theory,
> not because the US courts say it must be taught.
We don't teach Naturalistic Evolution because it's well supported
science. We teach it because the "Pope-approved" Theistic evolution
(which most countries are taught) would violate the separation of
church and state in the United States. Religion is banned in public
education for reason that have absolutely nothing to do with science.
To suggest that we always teach the best science, the best history,
the best mathematics, the best physical education (etc.) or that
anyone does is simply unrealistic. All public education everywhere is
a manifestation of politics.
>
> >Kid Cool is looking for
> > a solution threatening the status quo (the authority figures can't
> > allow that!).
>
> That's a common claim by Creationists, but it's not true. It's not a
> matter of challenging the "status quo", or authority figures. Creationism
> isn't challenging the status quo, it's challenging the basic underpinnings
> of science itself.
Would you prefer science that is unchallengable? If science can't
benefit from its underpinning being shaken, perhaps it's not science,
but dogma. (I know, another creationist claim... that doesn't make it
untrue).
>
> > You know what they say, "If you're not part of the
> > solution, then you're part of the problem".
>
> In this case the problem is, how can we prevent religious extremists from
> gutting scientific education?
Well, that's the rub.
The courts are going to continue to impose Naturalistic evolution.
They really have no choice, until they dispose of all adherence to the
Constitution. Unfortunately, they're well on their way to doing that
(superceding the Florida's legislatures right to submit their
electorial votes by approximately 24 hours in 2000 and selecting the
president themselves based on what they expected the Florida
legislature to do... they couldn't wait another 24 hours? or were they
demostrating their powers beyond the bounds of the Constitution?).
With all due respect, when the Constitution is no longer even
considered, we'll have bigger problems than the status of scientific
education.
JTG 1/14/03
>
>
> DJT
John Thomas Grisham
It's not the only nation that teaches Naturalistic Evolution, it's the
only one that teaches it due to the founding document of its country
(a.k.a. the U.S. Constitution).
The Brits teach it, but not with governmental oversight. If they fail
to teach it, they haven't violated the Magna Carta or seriously
jeopardized the basis for the authority of their government. It might
raise hell in the scientific community and among academics, but it
would only be a matter of ethics. Ethics aren't exactly a convincing
concern in most of the world.
For other nations, it's a matter of preference and credibility. The
Pope has a very cute form of theistic evolution that is popular in the
Catholic nations without a peep of criticism out of the scientific
community. No one cares.
The only debate is over U.S. public schools. It's not even a matter of
good science. It's a matter of whether our government adheres to the
Constitution or ignores it. Until they decide to ignore it, I suppose
we're special.
JTG 1/14/04
>
> Staffan S
Mark Isaak
Thomas Grisham) wrote:
>qswitch2....@passagen.se (Staffan S) wrote in message news:<b3c0ff23.04011...@posting.google.com>...
>> You seem to claim that the US educational system is special in that it
>> is the only one that teaches "Naturalistic Evolution". I challenge you
>> to substantiate that claim, or clarify what you really mean.
>
>It's not the only nation that teaches Naturalistic Evolution, it's the
>only one that teaches it due to the founding document of its country
>(a.k.a. the U.S. Constitution).
What is "naturalistic evolution"? If it is evolution with the
provisio that God is excluded, then the U.S. Constitution *prohibits*
teaching naturalistic evolution. If it is just plain evolution, then
the Constitution says nothing about it at all.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mark Isaak
done by Moses and the Pharaoh's men contradicts the creationist
position that change can only happen within "kinds".
Staffan S
"John Thomas Grisham" <jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us> skrev i meddelandet
news:1e9d6178.04011...@posting.google.com...
Would you care to substantiate your claim about the education in the
different countries you mentioned in the earlier post and in this post? This
would mean defining what "Naturalistic Evolution" is, of course.
Staffan S
John Thomas Grisham
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:25:47 +0000 (UTC), jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us (John
> Thomas Grisham) wrote:
>
> >qswitch2....@passagen.se (Staffan S) wrote in message news:<b3c0ff23.04011...@posting.google.com>...
> >> You seem to claim that the US educational system is special in that it
> >> is the only one that teaches "Naturalistic Evolution". I challenge you
> >> to substantiate that claim, or clarify what you really mean.
> >
> >It's not the only nation that teaches Naturalistic Evolution, it's the
> >only one that teaches it due to the founding document of its country
> >(a.k.a. the U.S. Constitution).
>
> What is "naturalistic evolution"?
Modern science adhers to Naturalism, the predisposition that all
things can be explained through the reaccurring processes which are
observable in nature and are not effected by any other means.
Evolution is the scientific theory that such processes have evolved
through time and is evident in many fields of science (Biology,
Geology, etc.). Naturalistic Evolution is the scientific theory that
reaccurring processes have evolved through time and are evident in
many fields of science which are observable in nature and are not
effected by any other means.
> If it is evolution with the
> provisio that God is excluded, then the U.S. Constitution *prohibits*
> teaching naturalistic evolution.
At this time, the teaching of Naturalistic Evolution is not considered
actionable as the government inhibiting religion under the
Establishment clause and by the interpretation of the body of
decisions of the courts. It fails the Lemon test (Lemon v. Kurtzman,
403 U.S. 602 - 1971). If the teaching of evolution could be proved to
"inhibit" religion, it might eventually be prohibited, however that
would require the overturning of key cases that have already set
precedent, continually since 1948.
> If it is just plain evolution, then
> the Constitution says nothing about it at all.
Evolution as a scientific theory didn't exist at the time the
Constitution was written, so it would be prophetic for the
Constitution to say anything about it. It speaks to the relationship
between church and state, because these were the catalysts of
political power at the end of the 18th century. Science did not
represent political power, as it might be considered to do now. We can
only speculate what the Founders might have said about modern science.
JTG 1/14/04
Joey
> part of the primary literature of science. At best it is a secondary
> source.
This is probably one of the most rediculous statements I ever heard,
since the bible has for thousands of years been read by jews and
christians alike (peers of those who wrote and edited the bible) and
has been heavily scrutinized by them.
David
Science is peer reviewed and then words do not change.
The bible may have been reviewed, as you describe, but it also changed.
Rather like Hovinds thesis. So in that respect I suppose Hovind modeled
his thesis on the bible.
David
r norman
wrote:
The comment was intended more for jocular than serious reading.
Still, its value is exactly in the fact that it is quite true, even
though applying such a criterion to the Bible is ridiculous.
The reason the statement is ridiculous is that the Bible is accepted
on faith (or else is read as a magnificent piece of literature, myth,
folklore, tradition, and ritual, not as the infallible word of God).
It is distinctly very different from the scientific primary literature
which must be validated by independent observers as adhering to
certain standards of evidence and logic. The Bible is most distinctly
NOT peer reviewed!
Lilith
Nah, I just love the pop culture of bygone days. My grandparents (both
sets) were a big influence in my life. My house is slowly filling up
with Deco/Nouveau furniture, I'm an "old movie" fan, and I have a
penchant for corsets and long, gracefully trailing skirts.
On those rare Saturday mornings that I have free. I curl up in a
flannel nightgown with a bowl of cereal (often healthy, but sometimes
sugary-disgusting) while on the couch and turn on Looney Tunes.
Sometimes, instead of cartoons, I watch one or more movies from the
1930's->40's and then at some point, dejectedly get off the couch with
my empty cereal bowl and go back to work in the real world, boy howdy.
D
Kid Cool
"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> It doesn't support evolution, but the whole sticks to snakes thing
> done by Moses and the Pharaoh's men contradicts the creationist
> position that change can only happen within "kinds".
>
unfrtunately, that was because of God's direct interference, so I don't
think it would count.
Kid Cool
Jim Lovejoy
news:1e9d6178.04011...@posting.google.com:
> Mark Isaak <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> news:<p67b00lp5sov1cqe1...@4ax.com>...
>snip<
>> If it is just plain evolution, then
>> the Constitution says nothing about it at all.
>
> Evolution as a scientific theory didn't exist at the time the
> Constitution was written, so it would be prophetic for the
> Constitution to say anything about it.
I believe the founding fathers were aware of Galileo's case. It wouldn't
be too prophetic to realize that another case of science vs. religion might
come up.
What would be prophetic, however, would be for the founders to figure that
the *federal* government would have a role to play. (Amendment I only
limited the power of the Federal government. It wasn't until the XIV
amendment that the possibility of extending the prohibition to the States
existed.)
Regards
Stanley Friesen
>If I'm to believe the statements made on talk.origins, then the
>American public is the poorest evolutionary educated people in the
>world.
Very possibly.
> If this is so, it is because Naturalistic Evolution is the only
>form of evolution that can be taught in U.S. public schools.
But not for this reason - as that is the *only* *scientific* version of
evolution.
The reason appears to be the deliberate ignorance of science by many
Fundamentalists.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
John Thomas Grisham
You must also realize that there was no public education, either. At
best, schools were voluntarily funded by the community (practically as
a charity) and attendance wasn't mandated or open to everyone. I'd
guess that religious schools dominated as the available educational
facilities until after WWI.
JTG 1/15/04
John Thomas Grisham
Modern science adhers to Naturalism, the predisposition that all
things can be explained through the reaccurring processes which are
observable in nature and are not effected by any other means.
Evolution is the scientific theory that such processes have evolved
through time and is evident in many fields of science (Biology,
Geology, etc.). Naturalistic Evolution is the scientific theory that
reaccurring processes have evolved through time and are evident in
many fields of science which are observable in nature and are not
effected by any other means.
Theistic Evolution (Pope-approved) is the current scientific position
of the Catholic church that agrees that reaccurring processes have
evolved through time and are evident in many fields of science which
are observable in nature and yet may be effected by other means
(presumably deity). Granted, this statement cuts to the chase of the
Papal proclaimation, however I feel it is a fair and accurate
representation of what the Pope conveyed and is the basis for
evolution instruction where Catholicism has influence over the
curriculum.
Case in point, last year college professor Dr. Dini of Texas was
challenged by a protestant student that disagreed with his
interpretation of evolution. Given the hysteria over Creationism, the
scientific community raced to Dr. Dini's defense. Dr Dini's position
were supported by all credible authorities. However, a quick check of
Dr. Dini's credentials shows that he spent ten years teaching Catholic
clergy, the Pope's Theistic Evolution. He declares himself a devout
Catholic. While we will never know for sure due to the hysteria
involved, it's quite possible that the student objected to being
require to accept Theistic Evolution as a condition of getting a
letter of recommendation from Dr. Dini. Meanwhile, Dr. Dini enjoys the
status of being the "defender of evolution" (You got to love the
irony!). The Establishment Clause is not applicable to private
colleges.
The whole of the Papal proclaimation is available on the internet. I'd
suggest using "Pope +Evolution" as a search parameter.
John Thomas Grisham
I find that hard to believe.
Fundementalists are a minority of the religious community and an even
smaller minority of the U.S. population. Referencing the numbers of
American fundementalist "leaning" church members, domestic and foreign
(Britannica Book of the Year 2003), I can't imagine that we're talking
about more than 5 million people, maximum (located predominantly in
the Old South). That's less than 2 percent of the total population. It
seems completely unrealistic to conclude that they could have a
noticable effect on public understanding... it would practically be a
miracle in the self-centered, wholesale materialistic culture of the
United States (Well, I guess that explains it!... God's on their
side).
>
> The peace of God be with you.
Thank You... Ditto!
JTG 1/15/04
>
> Stanley Friesen
catshark
That isn't true. "Science" only asserts that natural processes are the
only ones that *science* can study.
>Evolution is the scientific theory that such processes have evolved
>through time and is evident in many fields of science (Biology,
>Geology, etc.). Naturalistic Evolution is the scientific theory that
>reaccurring processes have evolved through time and are evident in
>many fields of science which are observable in nature and are not
>effected by any other means.
>
>Theistic Evolution (Pope-approved) is the current scientific position
>of the Catholic church that agrees that reaccurring processes have
>evolved through time and are evident in many fields of science which
>are observable in nature and yet may be effected by other means
>(presumably deity). Granted, this statement cuts to the chase of the
>Papal proclaimation, however I feel it is a fair and accurate
>representation of what the Pope conveyed and is the basis for
>evolution instruction where Catholicism has influence over the
>curriculum.
Even the Pope doesn't claim there can be scientific evidence for god,
AFAIK.
>
>Case in point, last year college professor Dr. Dini of Texas was
>challenged by a protestant student that disagreed with his
>interpretation of evolution. Given the hysteria over Creationism, the
>scientific community raced to Dr. Dini's defense. Dr Dini's position
>were supported by all credible authorities. However, a quick check of
>Dr. Dini's credentials shows that he spent ten years teaching Catholic
>clergy, the Pope's Theistic Evolution. He declares himself a devout
>Catholic. While we will never know for sure due to the hysteria
>involved, it's quite possible that the student objected to being
>require to accept Theistic Evolution as a condition of getting a
>letter of recommendation from Dr. Dini.
C'mon!
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/30/tech/main538565.shtml>
>Meanwhile, Dr. Dini enjoys the
>status of being the "defender of evolution" (You got to love the
>irony!). The Establishment Clause is not applicable to private
>colleges.
Dini is at Texas Tech, which is a state school:
<http://www.collegefortexans.com/cfbin/inst.cfm?IType=PU>
His personal religious beliefs are irrelevant to science.
>
>The whole of the Papal proclaimation is available on the internet. I'd
>suggest using "Pope +Evolution" as a search parameter.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
John Thomas Grisham
Exactly how does the content of your rebuttal differ from the previous
statement? I could shorten it! Modern science adhers to the
predisposition of Naturalism. What isn't true?
>
> >Evolution is the scientific theory that such processes have evolved
> >through time and is evident in many fields of science (Biology,
> >Geology, etc.). Naturalistic Evolution is the scientific theory that
> >reaccurring processes have evolved through time and are evident in
> >many fields of science which are observable in nature and are not
> >effected by any other means.
> >
> >Theistic Evolution (Pope-approved) is the current scientific position
> >of the Catholic church that agrees that reaccurring processes have
> >evolved through time and are evident in many fields of science which
> >are observable in nature and yet may be effected by other means
> >(presumably deity). Granted, this statement cuts to the chase of the
> >Papal proclaimation, however I feel it is a fair and accurate
> >representation of what the Pope conveyed and is the basis for
> >evolution instruction where Catholicism has influence over the
> >curriculum.
>
> Even the Pope doesn't claim there can be scientific evidence for god,
> AFAIK.
It's a word trick!
Modern science defines deity as supernatural. Supernatural is not
natural. Modern science adhers to Naturalism, therefore there can be
no scientific evidence of anything supernatural. Any such evidence
would be labelled an anomoly and therefore ignored, dismissed or held
without comment. By this method, any such evidence is functionally
excluded by the philosophy of Naturalism.
I'm sure the Pope understands that deity if philosophically excluded
from the scope of modern science. I doubt that he believes that modern
science is beyond the scope of deity.
>
> >
> >Case in point, last year college professor Dr. Dini of Texas was
> >challenged by a protestant student that disagreed with his
> >interpretation of evolution. Given the hysteria over Creationism, the
> >scientific community raced to Dr. Dini's defense. Dr Dini's position
> >were supported by all credible authorities. However, a quick check of
> >Dr. Dini's credentials shows that he spent ten years teaching Catholic
> >clergy, the Pope's Theistic Evolution. He declares himself a devout
> >Catholic. While we will never know for sure due to the hysteria
> >involved, it's quite possible that the student objected to being
> >require to accept Theistic Evolution as a condition of getting a
> >letter of recommendation from Dr. Dini.
>
> C'mon!
I hadn't a clue they were teaching theistic evolution until I looked
up Dini's background. He spent ten years teaching the Pope's version
of evolution to the priesthood. You really think he's teaching
something different, now?
>
> <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/30/tech/main538565.shtml>
>
> >Meanwhile, Dr. Dini enjoys the
> >status of being the "defender of evolution" (You got to love the
> >irony!). The Establishment Clause is not applicable to private
> >colleges.
>
> Dini is at Texas Tech, which is a state school:
Not for the purposes of the Establishment Clause, (Doe v. Sue Porter)
the court ruled that the student be of an "impressionable age".
Elementary, sure! High school teenagers, maybe! College students, I
don't think so!
>
> <http://www.collegefortexans.com/cfbin/inst.cfm?IType=PU>
>
> His personal religious beliefs are irrelevant to science.
If you say so!
JTG 1/15/04
catshark
Thomas Grisham) wrote:
>catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<qlmd00tqa2hll5lr2...@4ax.com>...
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:41:49 +0000 (UTC), jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us (John
>> Thomas Grisham) wrote:
>>
>> >"Staffan S" <qswitch2....@passagen.se> wrote in message news:<PUhNb.78178$dP1.1...@newsc.telia.net>...
>> >> "John Thomas Grisham" <jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us> skrev i meddelandet
>> >> news:1e9d6178.04011...@posting.google.com...
>> >> > qswitch2....@passagen.se (Staffan S) wrote in message
>> news:<b3c0ff23.04011...@posting.google.com>...
>> >> > > jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us (John Thomas Grisham) wrote in message
>> news:<1e9d6178.0401...@posting.google.com>...
>> >> > > > ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote in message
>> news:<2b68957a.04011...@posting.google.com>...
>> >> > > > > "Kid Cool" <kccsubATc...@giganews.com> wrote in message
>> news:<OrCdncSbYPq...@comcast.com>...
>> >> > > > > > "stew dean" <ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> > > > > > news:2b68957a.04011...@posting.google.com...
>> >> > > > > > > "Kid Cool" <kccsubATc...@giganews.com> wrote in message
>> news:<Os-dnckdv4e...@comcast.com>...
[...]
>> >
>> >Modern science adhers to Naturalism, the predisposition that all
>> >things can be explained through the reaccurring processes which are
>> >observable in nature and are not effected by any other means.
>>
>> That isn't true. "Science" only asserts that natural processes are the
>> only ones that *science* can study.
>
>Exactly how does the content of your rebuttal differ from the previous
>statement? I could shorten it! Modern science adhers to the
>predisposition of Naturalism. What isn't true?
Science neither claims that "all things can be explained" by science nor
that it can exclude the possibility that things are "effected by any other
means". Science has a predisposition to naturalism the same way
mathematics has a predisposition towards numbers. Nature is the *subject*
of science.
>
>>
>> >Evolution is the scientific theory that such processes have evolved
>> >through time and is evident in many fields of science (Biology,
>> >Geology, etc.). Naturalistic Evolution is the scientific theory that
>> >reaccurring processes have evolved through time and are evident in
>> >many fields of science which are observable in nature and are not
>> >effected by any other means.
>> >
>> >Theistic Evolution (Pope-approved) is the current scientific position
>> >of the Catholic church that agrees that reaccurring processes have
>> >evolved through time and are evident in many fields of science which
>> >are observable in nature and yet may be effected by other means
>> >(presumably deity). Granted, this statement cuts to the chase of the
>> >Papal proclaimation, however I feel it is a fair and accurate
>> >representation of what the Pope conveyed and is the basis for
>> >evolution instruction where Catholicism has influence over the
>> >curriculum.
>>
>> Even the Pope doesn't claim there can be scientific evidence for god,
>> AFAIK.
>
>It's a word trick!
>
>Modern science defines deity as supernatural. Supernatural is not
>natural. Modern science adhers to Naturalism, therefore there can be
>no scientific evidence of anything supernatural.
There can be no *scientific* evidence for the supernatural (any more than
there can be *mathematical* evidence for the supernatural). It is beyond
the competancy of science. That isn't a limitation on the supernatural, it
is an admitted limitation on science's ability to produce *evidence* of the
supernatural under science's self-imposed rules.
>Any such evidence
>would be labelled an anomoly and therefore ignored, dismissed or held
>without comment. By this method, any such evidence is functionally
>excluded by the philosophy of Naturalism.
I'm sure that people who adhere to the *philosophy* of Naturalism agree.
But, as you yourself have pointed out in Dini's case, one need *not* adhere
to such a philosophy in order to *do* science. You simply can't confuse
*which* you are doing at any point.
>
>I'm sure the Pope understands that deity if philosophically excluded
>from the scope of modern science. I doubt that he believes that modern
>science is beyond the scope of deity.
I'm sure I don't understand what you were trying to say there.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Case in point, last year college professor Dr. Dini of Texas was
>> >challenged by a protestant student that disagreed with his
>> >interpretation of evolution. Given the hysteria over Creationism, the
>> >scientific community raced to Dr. Dini's defense. Dr Dini's position
>> >were supported by all credible authorities. However, a quick check of
>> >Dr. Dini's credentials shows that he spent ten years teaching Catholic
>> >clergy, the Pope's Theistic Evolution. He declares himself a devout
>> >Catholic. While we will never know for sure due to the hysteria
>> >involved, it's quite possible that the student objected to being
>> >require to accept Theistic Evolution as a condition of getting a
>> >letter of recommendation from Dr. Dini.
>>
>> C'mon!
>
>I hadn't a clue they were teaching theistic evolution until I looked
>up Dini's background. He spent ten years teaching the Pope's version
>of evolution to the priesthood.
Have you ever attended a Catholic college or university? I have. I've
gone though entire courses taught by Jesuit priests where the word "god"
was never mentioned. What you are claiming is nothing but (faintly
bigoted) baseless insinuation.
>You really think he's teaching
>something different, now?
I seriously doubt it. I just don't think it means anything close to what
you are implying.
>
>>
>> <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/30/tech/main538565.shtml>
>>
>> >Meanwhile, Dr. Dini enjoys the
>> >status of being the "defender of evolution" (You got to love the
>> >irony!). The Establishment Clause is not applicable to private
>> >colleges.
>>
>> Dini is at Texas Tech, which is a state school:
>
>Not for the purposes of the Establishment Clause, (Doe v. Sue Porter)
>the court ruled that the student be of an "impressionable age".
>Elementary, sure! High school teenagers, maybe! College students, I
>don't think so!
Generally speaking, school cases involving religious instruction are
scrutinized more stringently the younger the age of the students involved,
but the idea that a *religious* doctrine can be taught as *science* at a
state university is simply untrue under the present state of the law.
Without going into the nuances of a 19 page decision, what the court was
was addressing in _Doe_ was the defense by the school district that an
*admittedly* religious instructional program was "voluntary". The judge
simply noted in passing that such a defense was untennable given the age of
the children involved. He had already declared the program invalid on the
grounds of the Lemon test, however.
>
>>
>> <http://www.collegefortexans.com/cfbin/inst.cfm?IType=PU>
>>
>> His personal religious beliefs are irrelevant to science.
>
>If you say so!
Indeed it is. That assumes, of course, that he is not attempting to
substitute his religious beliefs *for* science.
Stanley Friesen
>catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<qlmd00tqa2hll5lr2...@4ax.com>...
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:41:49 +0000 (UTC), jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us (John
>> Thomas Grisham) wrote:
>> >Modern science adhers to Naturalism, the predisposition that all
>> >things can be explained through the reaccurring processes which are
>> >observable in nature and are not effected by any other means.
>>
>> That isn't true. "Science" only asserts that natural processes are the
>> only ones that *science* can study.
>
>Exactly how does the content of your rebuttal differ from the previous
>statement? I could shorten it! Modern science adhers to the
>predisposition of Naturalism. What isn't true?
>
That this is a statement about reality. Science doesn't require that
there *be* nothing else, only that anything else is beyond the *scope*
of science.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Stanley Friesen
>
>Modern science adhers to Naturalism, the predisposition that all
>things can be explained through the reaccurring processes which are
>observable in nature and are not effected by any other means.
>Evolution is the scientific theory that such processes have evolved
>through time and is evident in many fields of science (Biology,
>Geology, etc.). Naturalistic Evolution is the scientific theory that
>reaccurring processes have evolved through time and are evident in
>many fields of science which are observable in nature and are not
>effected by any other means.
I would drop the last clause, as it probably goes beyond science in its
implications.
>
>Theistic Evolution (Pope-approved) is the current scientific position
>of the Catholic church
No, this is NOT a *scientific* position. It is a *theological* one. It
*incorporates* the scientific position - that evolution occurred - but
then adds a religious interpretation on top of that.
>
>Case in point, last year college professor Dr. Dini of Texas was
>challenged by a protestant student that disagreed with his
>interpretation of evolution. Given the hysteria over Creationism, the
>scientific community raced to Dr. Dini's defense. Dr Dini's position
>were supported by all credible authorities.
No, it was not. He went too far.
> However, a quick check of
>Dr. Dini's credentials shows that he spent ten years teaching Catholic
>clergy, the Pope's Theistic Evolution. He declares himself a devout
>Catholic. While we will never know for sure due to the hysteria
>involved, it's quite possible that the student objected to being
>require to accept Theistic Evolution as a condition of getting a
>letter of recommendation from Dr. Dini.
Which is indeed inappropriate, since theistic evolution is NOT a
scientific position, but a religious one.
[Note, it is my belief also, but I would never teach it in a *science*
class].
Stanley Friesen
>Stanley Friesen <sar...@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<8sbc00dv3jr1f6d29...@4ax.com>...
>> jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us (John Thomas Grisham) wrote:
>> >If I'm to believe the statements made on talk.origins, then the
>> >American public is the poorest evolutionary educated people in the
>> >world.
>>
>> Very possibly.
>>
>> > If this is so, it is because Naturalistic Evolution is the only
>> >form of evolution that can be taught in U.S. public schools.
>>
>> But not for this reason - as that is the *only* *scientific* version of
>> evolution.
>>
>> The reason appears to be the deliberate ignorance of science by many
>> Fundamentalists.
>
>I find that hard to believe.
>
Perhaps so, but I have seen it in operation. My own uncle *refuses* to
understand evolution. He is blinded by his religious beliefs which
require him to reject it, so he has to view it as something absurd. His
view of what evolution is are so far from the reality that they are a
joke, but no amount of explanation will change his understanding of
evolution one iota.
>Fundementalists are a minority of the religious community and an even
>smaller minority of the U.S. population. Referencing the numbers of
>American fundementalist "leaning" church members, domestic and foreign
>(Britannica Book of the Year 2003), I can't imagine that we're talking
>about more than 5 million people, maximum (located predominantly in
>the Old South).
Hardly. Kansas is a strongly Fundemantalist state. (They are not,
quite, a majority there, but they are very powerful). I know of
thriving Fundamentalist churches in Montana, Nebraska, and North Dakota.
And here in Los Angeles there are many *large* Fundamentalist churches -
enough of them so that I had a hard time locating a *non* Fundamentalist
church. This is a large part of why I am now a member of a Lutheran
church.
[Note there are even Fundamentalist Lutherans - such as the Missouri
Synod].
> That's less than 2 percent of the total population.
I think this is a gross underestimate. I suspect there may be close to
5 million Fundamentalist right here in Los Angeles and Orange counties.
> It
>seems completely unrealistic to conclude that they could have a
>noticable effect on public understanding... it would practically be a
>miracle in the self-centered, wholesale materialistic culture of the
>United States (Well, I guess that explains it!... God's on their
>side).
Actually, the US culture is amazingly *religious* - even Puritanical.
Even England is more secular than the US.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
John Thomas Grisham
I see in your bebuttal a contradiction. At first, you assert that
science is not to be expected to explain all things (which makes
science a subset of all things and I've no difficulty with that).
However, you conclude that "Nature is the subject of science" (which
would seem to make nature a subset of science and I really don't see
it that way). If we could agree that nature is all things and nothing
is truely unnatural or supernatural (just undocumented or unobserved),
then I think we can be on the same page.
The metaverse hypothesized in M Theory is in all practical senses
supernatural (at present) and there is mathematical evidence for it.
Of course, they don't call it supernatural because Naturalism would
force them to abandon the field, but what would you call something
beyond the observable universe, functionally unreachable and
untestable? It would seem that those self-imposed rules only apply to
those, who don't know any better.
>
> >Any such evidence
> >would be labelled an anomoly and therefore ignored, dismissed or held
> >without comment. By this method, any such evidence is functionally
> >excluded by the philosophy of Naturalism.
>
> I'm sure that people who adhere to the *philosophy* of Naturalism agree.
> But, as you yourself have pointed out in Dini's case, one need *not* adhere
> to such a philosophy in order to *do* science. You simply can't confuse
> *which* you are doing at any point.
Well, that's what the debate over evolution in the classroom is about.
Dini's teaching college students (which under Doe v. Sue Potter are
not considered impressionable enough to be protected by the
Establishment Clause). There is no oversight to the content of what he
calls "evolution". With a decade of teaching "Theistic Evolution" to
Catholic clergy, I sincerely doubt that he'd teach anything else.
Certainly, we can't help that individuals are individuals and teach
from their own perspective, but we should be aware of what that
perspective truly is and in Dini's case, there was too much hysteria
for anyone to care.
>
> >
> >I'm sure the Pope understands that deity if philosophically excluded
> >from the scope of modern science. I doubt that he believes that modern
> >science is beyond the scope of deity.
>
> I'm sure I don't understand what you were trying to say there.
Simply, that the Pope sees Catholicism as having greater scope than
science.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Case in point, last year college professor Dr. Dini of Texas was
> >> >challenged by a protestant student that disagreed with his
> >> >interpretation of evolution. Given the hysteria over Creationism, the
> >> >scientific community raced to Dr. Dini's defense. Dr Dini's position
> >> >were supported by all credible authorities. However, a quick check of
> >> >Dr. Dini's credentials shows that he spent ten years teaching Catholic
> >> >clergy, the Pope's Theistic Evolution. He declares himself a devout
> >> >Catholic. While we will never know for sure due to the hysteria
> >> >involved, it's quite possible that the student objected to being
> >> >require to accept Theistic Evolution as a condition of getting a
> >> >letter of recommendation from Dr. Dini.
> >>
> >> C'mon!
> >
> >I hadn't a clue they were teaching theistic evolution until I looked
> >up Dini's background. He spent ten years teaching the Pope's version
> >of evolution to the priesthood.
>
> Have you ever attended a Catholic college or university? I have. I've
> gone though entire courses taught by Jesuit priests where the word "god"
> was never mentioned. What you are claiming is nothing but (faintly
> bigoted) baseless insinuation.
You're not really suggesting that they're teaching atheism, that the
spirit of God is absent from the evolution of the world, that there is
no Creator? If you can confirm that they are, then a Neo-Protestant
movement should be pending.
>
> >You really think he's teaching
> >something different, now?
>
> I seriously doubt it. I just don't think it means anything close to what
> you are implying.
I'm implying that the Establishment Clause is being attacked from all
sides, top to bottom. The Fundementalists would be happy campers if
they could get theistic evolution taught in public schools or any form
of evolution that assumes deity.
It's a matter of being careful about what you want. As currently
applied, the Establishment Clause insures that one godless
interpretation of what we are is shoved down the throats of public
school students. I can think of nothing better to spark a spiritual
awakening. If the Fundys ever get what they want, they might not want
what they get.
> >
> >>
> >> <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/30/tech/main538565.shtml>
> >>
> >> >Meanwhile, Dr. Dini enjoys the
> >> >status of being the "defender of evolution" (You got to love the
> >> >irony!). The Establishment Clause is not applicable to private
> >> >colleges.
> >>
> >> Dini is at Texas Tech, which is a state school:
> >
> >Not for the purposes of the Establishment Clause, (Doe v. Sue Porter)
> >the court ruled that the student be of an "impressionable age".
> >Elementary, sure! High school teenagers, maybe! College students, I
> >don't think so!
>
> Generally speaking, school cases involving religious instruction are
> scrutinized more stringently the younger the age of the students involved,
> but the idea that a *religious* doctrine can be taught as *science* at a
> state university is simply untrue under the present state of the law.
>
> Without going into the nuances of a 19 page decision, what the court was
> was addressing in _Doe_ was the defense by the school district that an
> *admittedly* religious instructional program was "voluntary". The judge
> simply noted in passing that such a defense was untennable given the age of
> the children involved. He had already declared the program invalid on the
> grounds of the Lemon test, however.
Certainly, you're aware the Constitution is under attack, as well.
Reagan tried to call for a new constitution. Many Supreme Court
decisions since 2000 ignore the Constitution. So goes the
Constitution, so goes the Establishment Clause.
Ethan Rogati
sar...@friesen.net wrote on 1/16/04 10:03 AM:
Agreed, but then you get those who take another step and say that anything
beyond the scope of science is worthless, meaningless and since there's no
scientific evidence for it, it doesn't exist. Is it understandable at all
why people would have a problem with that?
Mark Isaak
Thomas Grisham) wrote:
>Mark Isaak <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message news:<p67b00lp5sov1cqe1...@4ax.com>...
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:25:47 +0000 (UTC), jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us (John
>> Thomas Grisham) wrote:
>>
>> >qswitch2....@passagen.se (Staffan S) wrote in message news:<b3c0ff23.04011...@posting.google.com>...
>> >> You seem to claim that the US educational system is special in that it
>> >> is the only one that teaches "Naturalistic Evolution". I challenge you
>> >> to substantiate that claim, or clarify what you really mean.
>> >
>> >It's not the only nation that teaches Naturalistic Evolution, it's the
>> >only one that teaches it due to the founding document of its country
>> >(a.k.a. the U.S. Constitution).
>>
>> What is "naturalistic evolution"?
>
>Modern science adhers to Naturalism, the predisposition that all
>things can be explained through the reaccurring processes which are
>observable in nature and are not effected by any other means.
That is, most emphatically, not even close to true. Modern science
adheres to no such proposition. In fact, science adheres to the
proposition that *not* all things can be explained. Nature comes in
only because that is the only place scientists have been able to find
recurring observable processes.
The Naturalism you refer to is supported only by creationists, who
make God a natural observable process that explains all things.
>> If it is evolution with the
>> provisio that God is excluded, then the U.S. Constitution *prohibits*
>> teaching naturalistic evolution.
>
>At this time, the teaching of Naturalistic Evolution is not considered
>actionable as the government inhibiting religion under the
>Establishment clause . . .
If I knew of a teacher taught your version of "Naturalism", I would
most certainly be citing the Establishment clause in my complaint.
Evolution does not rule out God, and saying it does is an insult to
evolution and to God.
Mark Isaak
Indeed, that mindset is the entire basis for "scientific" creationism
and intelligent design creationism.
> Is it understandable at all
>why people would have a problem with that?
It is less understandable why people who accept it themselves would
have a problem with it.
Mark Isaak
<kccsubATc...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>news:ui7b00d7pqp4cpbj5...@4ax.com...
>> It doesn't support evolution, but the whole sticks to snakes thing
>> done by Moses and the Pharaoh's men contradicts the creationist
>> position that change can only happen within "kinds".
>
>unfrtunately, that was because of God's direct interference, so I don't
>think it would count.
Remember, the Pharaoh's priests did it, too. That sort of magic was
not limited to God.
John Thomas Grisham
The total number of Protestants in the U.S. is about 70 million. The
major denominations are not involved. I suppose there could be small
factions within the mnajor denominations, but mostly it seems to be
the Pentecostal minority spread across diverse denominations which
makes up the mass of the Fundementalist movement.
I can't in good conscience give you 7 million Fundementalists because
on groups this size, a rule of politics is that 10 percent activism
must lead to revolution or at least critical internal reorganization.
If there were 7 million Fundementalists, then there would be a
Protestant revolution happening in religion. I've seen no sign of
that! I feel generous to give you hypothetically 5 million and I feel
that's a realistic number (probably high) considering that activism is
difficult for individuals to maintain.
You also have to realize that the perception in Southern California is
more ritual than actual. It's the center for TV and movies, therefore
a certain amount of religious identification is meant to calm the
fears of Middle America. Lucifer himself would be wearing a big golden
cross and a fish symbol tie tack in his lapel as he molests children
and sells heroin on the streets of L.A. . There's a reason they put
Disneyland in Orange County.
JTG 1/16/04
catshark
Thomas Grisham) wrote:
I don't know what you are getting at here. Science is not a "thing" with
separate existance. Science is the *method* by which humans study nature.
Science does not encompass nature anymore than humans encompass nature.
Humans are a part of nature (though some theists assert - without any
scientific evidence - that humans are *partly* outside nature).
How does any of that make nature a subset of science?
>If we could agree that nature is all things and nothing
>is truely unnatural or supernatural (just undocumented or unobserved),
>then I think we can be on the same page.
Then any god that exists is just a part of of nature? That *would* make
such a god a subset of nature and less than the sum of nature. That would
also make *you* the adherent of philosophical Naturalism, instead of
scientists.
"Speculation". Which is *exactly* what many, if not most, scientists call
M theory. At best, it is *potential* science that is awaiting some method
of being tested. The supernatural, since it cannot be tested, isn't even
potential science.
>It would seem that those self-imposed rules only apply to
>those, who don't know any better.
Science can hypothesize. It is even encouraged. The very process often
leads to new discoveries. But the fact remains that even its adherents do
not consider M theory well-founded scientifically or anything much more
than an intriguing possibility with attractive mathematical "elegance".
>
>>
>> >Any such evidence
>> >would be labelled an anomoly and therefore ignored, dismissed or held
>> >without comment. By this method, any such evidence is functionally
>> >excluded by the philosophy of Naturalism.
>>
>> I'm sure that people who adhere to the *philosophy* of Naturalism agree.
>> But, as you yourself have pointed out in Dini's case, one need *not* adhere
>> to such a philosophy in order to *do* science. You simply can't confuse
>> *which* you are doing at any point.
>
>Well, that's what the debate over evolution in the classroom is about.
>Dini's teaching college students (which under Doe v. Sue Potter are
>not considered impressionable enough to be protected by the
>Establishment Clause).
Law is my field and you are incorrect. That is *not* the test of the
Establishment clause, even after all the attempts to erode it. The _Doe_
case actually confirms that.
>There is no oversight to the content of what he
>calls "evolution". With a decade of teaching "Theistic Evolution" to
>Catholic clergy, I sincerely doubt that he'd teach anything else.
You have no basis to say that except, perhaps, projection.
>Certainly, we can't help that individuals are individuals and teach
>from their own perspective, but we should be aware of what that
>perspective truly is and in Dini's case, there was too much hysteria
>for anyone to care.
As far as I can tell, the only one suffering hysteria around here is you.
You have offered nothing but innuendo concerning what Dini taught or
teaches.
>
>>
>> >
>> >I'm sure the Pope understands that deity if philosophically excluded
>> >from the scope of modern science. I doubt that he believes that modern
>> >science is beyond the scope of deity.
>>
>> I'm sure I don't understand what you were trying to say there.
>
>Simply, that the Pope sees Catholicism as having greater scope than
>science.
And I'd agree. Religion seeks to answer questions that science cannot, as
I've been saying all along. Many people recognize that, including, as far
as I can tell, most scientists who are theists.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Case in point, last year college professor Dr. Dini of Texas was
>> >> >challenged by a protestant student that disagreed with his
>> >> >interpretation of evolution. Given the hysteria over Creationism, the
>> >> >scientific community raced to Dr. Dini's defense. Dr Dini's position
>> >> >were supported by all credible authorities. However, a quick check of
>> >> >Dr. Dini's credentials shows that he spent ten years teaching Catholic
>> >> >clergy, the Pope's Theistic Evolution. He declares himself a devout
>> >> >Catholic. While we will never know for sure due to the hysteria
>> >> >involved, it's quite possible that the student objected to being
>> >> >require to accept Theistic Evolution as a condition of getting a
>> >> >letter of recommendation from Dr. Dini.
>> >>
>> >> C'mon!
>> >
>> >I hadn't a clue they were teaching theistic evolution until I looked
>> >up Dini's background. He spent ten years teaching the Pope's version
>> >of evolution to the priesthood.
>>
>> Have you ever attended a Catholic college or university? I have. I've
>> gone though entire courses taught by Jesuit priests where the word "god"
>> was never mentioned. What you are claiming is nothing but (faintly
>> bigoted) baseless insinuation.
>
>You're not really suggesting that they're teaching atheism, that the
>spirit of God is absent from the evolution of the world, that there is
>no Creator? If you can confirm that they are, then a Neo-Protestant
>movement should be pending.
Of course Catholic schools *also* teach their religion and philosophy . . .
in the appropriate courses. I can tell you from personal experience,
however, that many, if not most, Catholic educators are (as many, if not
most, other theistic educators are) capable of separating one subject from
another.
>
>>
>> >You really think he's teaching
>> >something different, now?
>>
>> I seriously doubt it. I just don't think it means anything close to what
>> you are implying.
>
>I'm implying that the Establishment Clause is being attacked from all
>sides, top to bottom. The Fundementalists would be happy campers if
>they could get theistic evolution taught in public schools or any form
>of evolution that assumes deity.
That I agree with, which is why I said below "under the present state of
the law". But the Establishment Clause *is* still the law and still
vigorous.
>
>It's a matter of being careful about what you want. As currently
>applied, the Establishment Clause insures that one godless
>interpretation of what we are is shoved down the throats of public
>school students.
*And* guarantees that they can learn whatever opposing view they want in
their homes and churches free of government interference.
As to "godless evolution", I agree with Robert T. Pennock:
It is misleading for creationists to characterize science
in general and evolution in particular as "godless."
Science is godless in the same way that plumbing is godless.
Now, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some fundamentalists would want trade
schools to teach "godly plumbing" but I have no intention of acquiescing to
that either.
>I can think of nothing better to spark a spiritual
>awakening. If the Fundys ever get what they want, they might not want
>what they get.
That I agree with also. It is the ever present price of democracy.
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/30/tech/main538565.shtml>
>> >>
>> >> >Meanwhile, Dr. Dini enjoys the
>> >> >status of being the "defender of evolution" (You got to love the
>> >> >irony!). The Establishment Clause is not applicable to private
>> >> >colleges.
>> >>
>> >> Dini is at Texas Tech, which is a state school:
>> >
>> >Not for the purposes of the Establishment Clause, (Doe v. Sue Porter)
>> >the court ruled that the student be of an "impressionable age".
>> >Elementary, sure! High school teenagers, maybe! College students, I
>> >don't think so!
>>
>> Generally speaking, school cases involving religious instruction are
>> scrutinized more stringently the younger the age of the students involved,
>> but the idea that a *religious* doctrine can be taught as *science* at a
>> state university is simply untrue under the present state of the law.
>>
>> Without going into the nuances of a 19 page decision, what the court was
>> was addressing in _Doe_ was the defense by the school district that an
>> *admittedly* religious instructional program was "voluntary". The judge
>> simply noted in passing that such a defense was untennable given the age of
>> the children involved. He had already declared the program invalid on the
>> grounds of the Lemon test, however.
>
>Certainly, you're aware the Constitution is under attack, as well.
>Reagan tried to call for a new constitution. Many Supreme Court
>decisions since 2000 ignore the Constitution. So goes the
>Constitution, so goes the Establishment Clause.
Certainly that is true. And . . . ?
Stanley Friesen
>in article hcvf00dhea5pc38o0...@4ax.com, Stanley Friesen at
>sar...@friesen.net wrote on 1/16/04 10:03 AM:
>> That this is a statement about reality. Science doesn't require that
>> there *be* nothing else, only that anything else is beyond the *scope*
>> of science.
>
>Agreed, but then you get those who take another step and say that anything
>beyond the scope of science is worthless, meaningless and since there's no
>scientific evidence for it, it doesn't exist. Is it understandable at all
>why people would have a problem with that?
Certainly - however that has *nothing* to do with science per se. It is
a *philosophical* stance with regard to existence. There is nothing in
the scientific method that requires making such a leap.
Stanley Friesen
>The total number of Protestants in the U.S. is about 70 million. The
>major denominations are not involved. I suppose there could be small
>factions within the mnajor denominations, but mostly it seems to be
>the Pentecostal minority spread across diverse denominations which
>makes up the mass of the Fundementalist movement.
The vast majority of Southern Baptists, Missouri Synod Lutherans, and
several other major denominations are now Fundamentalist. As are
numerous smaller denominations - such as Calvary Chapel.
>
>I can't in good conscience give you 7 million Fundementalists because
>on groups this size, a rule of politics is that 10 percent activism
>must lead to revolution or at least critical internal reorganization.
Not all Fundamentalists are *activists*. My uncle is a good example of
that as well. He is a staunch Fundamentalist, but by and large he just
lives his life.
>You also have to realize that the perception in Southern California is
>more ritual than actual. It's the center for TV and movies, therefore
>a certain amount of religious identification is meant to calm the
>fears of Middle America.
The Fundamentalists churches here are not particularly associated with
the media. Nor are they mainly for show. I have visited several of
them. The fervor is very deep, and very disturbing, as is the degree of
indoctrination and brainwashing.
Indeed, outside of the so-called mainline denominations (ELCA,
Episcopal, Methodist, Anglican and the like), it is hard to find a *non*
Fundamentalist church here in LA and Orange counties.
Stanley Friesen
>science is not to be expected to explain all things (which makes
>science a subset of all things and I've no difficulty with that).
>However, you conclude that "Nature is the subject of science" (which
>would seem to make nature a subset of science and I really don't see
>it that way). If we could agree that nature is all things and nothing
>is truely unnatural or supernatural (just undocumented or unobserved),
>then I think we can be on the same page.
>
with. It is also a *philosophical* (or religious) conclusion, not a
scientific one.
>
>The metaverse hypothesized in M Theory is in all practical senses
>supernatural (at present) and there is mathematical evidence for it.
A. If it has physical existence, and our Universe is causally connected
to it, I would deny that it is supernatural.
B. *Mathematical* "evidence" is not, IMHO, evidence for actual
existence. At most it is evidence that its existence is not
self-contradictory.
>> I'm sure that people who adhere to the *philosophy* of Naturalism agree.
>> But, as you yourself have pointed out in Dini's case, one need *not* adhere
>> to such a philosophy in order to *do* science. You simply can't confuse
>> *which* you are doing at any point.
>
>Well, that's what the debate over evolution in the classroom is about.
If evolution is *properly* taught, then the philosophical positions are
treated as side matters, and not part of the primary curriculum.
Evolution *per* *se* is agnostic on which philosophy one takes with
regard to nature, and so it is inappropriate to teach any such as if it
were part of the science.
>Dini's teaching college students (which under Doe v. Sue Potter are
>not considered impressionable enough to be protected by the
>Establishment Clause). There is no oversight to the content of what he
>calls "evolution".
Well, that seems odd, to me. Most universities have some requirements
on the content of courses.
>With a decade of teaching "Theistic Evolution" to
>Catholic clergy, I sincerely doubt that he'd teach anything else.
He shouldn't even have been teaching it to them. It is *not* science,
and does not belong in a science class, period.
>
>I'm implying that the Establishment Clause is being attacked from all
>sides, top to bottom. The Fundementalists would be happy campers if
>they could get theistic evolution taught in public schools or any form
>of evolution that assumes deity.
>
>It's a matter of being careful about what you want. As currently
>applied, the Establishment Clause insures that one godless
>interpretation of what we are is shoved down the throats of public
>school students.
No it doesn't. It establishes that the *extraneous* *philosophical*
issues are left out of *science* classes. Nothing should be said *one*
*way* *or* *the* *other* about the existance/involvement of any deity in
any natural process in any science class. Such issues are *irrelevant*
to the science.
>
>Certainly, you're aware the Constitution is under attack, as well.
Certainly. But the major threats to it right now are Bush and Ashcroft.
darth_versive
> jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us (John Thomas Grisham) wrote:
> >
> >I see in your rebuttal a contradiction. At first, you assert that
> >science is not to be expected to explain all things (which makes
> >science a subset of all things and I've no difficulty with that).
> >However, you conclude that "Nature is the subject of science" (which
> >would seem to make nature a subset of science and I really don't see
> >it that way). If we could agree that nature is all things and nothing
> >is truely unnatural or supernatural (just undocumented or unobserved),
> >then I think we can be on the same page.
> >
> Ah, but that is a disputed issue, and not one many of us would agree
> with. It is also a *philosophical* (or religious) conclusion, not a
> scientific one.
Right. There's a distinction between philosophical naturalism (also
called ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism) and science,
which involves methodological naturalism.
Science makes no metaphysical claims regarding whether, as John Thomas
Grisham put it, "nature is all things and nothing is truely unnatural
or supernatural." Science is silent on the issue.
Therefore, one can accept the theory of evolution as good science, and
at the same time, one can believe in one or another religious system
involving a supernatural deity or deities.
The problem, as we know, is that certain religious systems teach that
their deity or deities were directly involved in the process of
creation, and that that process involved miracles rather than the
sorts of natural processes studied by science. Therefore, they can't
reconcile what science teaches with their theology and religious
tradition. Therefore, they reject modern science, at least with
regard to those parts of the "process of creation" which are important
to their theology.
It's a very interesting psychological and cultural phenomenon, from a
social scientific perspective (although I realize that it doesn't seem
so very interesting to those pro-science folks who keep banging their
heads against a brick wall by trying to reason with those people who
hold to such theological views).
DV
I Think..Therefore I Am Clayton
gravity!
Al Klein
Clayton" <cj...@SPAMBLOCKnotmyemail.com> posted in alt.atheism:
>What's to "justify"??? That's like using Humpty Dumpty to "justify"
>gravity!
IOW, something most fundies would find perfectly "logical".
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Steven Spence
You will be changed, in a moment, in a twinkling of an eye.
You shall be a new creature
For the old is passed away, behold all things are become new.
The only reason it is commonly said the bible is not for evolution is
that those that act as though they own the bible (church, harlot,
interpretors)actually stole it like they did the robes from the bottom
of the cross and have put them on to say what they want them to say
and will not allow any spirit even from God to interpret otherwise.
But like the sign of the whale, they will not control Moby Dick and
they will soon be exposed. The smallest of points overlooked will soon
alter the largest of equations (dna) and render all the
interpretations meaningless. Stephentree
Matt Silberstein
(Lilith):
>Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<earle.jones-E184...@netnews.comcast.net>...
>> In article <75200cbc.04011...@posting.google.com>,
>> lil...@umich.edu (Lilith) wrote:
>>
>> > kegwasher <washer_...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> > news:<btuqqp$7qf$01$2...@news.t-online.com>...
>> > > Earle Jones wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > In article <Os-dnckdv4e...@comcast.com>,
>> > > > "Kid Cool" <kccsubATc...@giganews.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Reading the posts about Lev 19:19 got me thinking, what other quotes
>> > > >> from
>> > > >> the bible could be used to support evolution?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Kid Cool
>> > > >
>> > > > *
>> > > > The bible was written by bronze-age goatherders and otherwise
>> > > > uneducated peasants a couple of thousand years ago.
>> > > >
>> > > > Evolution was described by Darwin, Wallace, and others in the mid-19th
>> > > > century.
>> > > >
>> > > > I don't think you will find anything in the bible that speaks to
>> > > > evolution, and if you do, it is a fluke.
>> > > >
>> > > > But then, most of what you read in the bible is a fluke.
>> > > >
>> > > > earle
>> > > > *
>> > > >
>> > > > "It (the Bible) is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it;
>> > > > and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history;
>> > > > and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity;
>> > > > and upwards of a thousand lies."
>> > > >
>> > > > --Samuel Langhorne Clemens (1835 - 1910) "Mark Twain"
>> > >
>> > > Asking if the bible could be used to justify evolution is like asking if
>> > > the
>> > > lord of the rings could be used to justify evolution.
>> >
>> >
>> > Mmm...but it could justify sexual selection for men with facial hair.
>> > Hubba hubba. The problem is, such choices...
>> >
>>
>> *
>> "Hubba hubba"???
>>
>> You're older than I thought you were!
>>
>> earle
>
>Nah, I just love the pop culture of bygone days. My grandparents (both
>sets) were a big influence in my life. My house is slowly filling up
>with Deco/Nouveau furniture, I'm an "old movie" fan, and I have a
>penchant for corsets and long, gracefully trailing skirts.
>
>On those rare Saturday mornings that I have free. I curl up in a
>flannel nightgown with a bowl of cereal (often healthy, but sometimes
>sugary-disgusting) while on the couch and turn on Looney Tunes.
>Sometimes, instead of cartoons, I watch one or more movies from the
>1930's->40's and then at some point, dejectedly get off the couch with
>my empty cereal bowl and go back to work in the real world, boy howdy.
And me already married.
One of my best birthdays was a viewing of a double bill of _The
Maltese Falcon_ and _Casablanca_, in a real movie theater, with
a date who had never seen either. I wished I had a fedora.
Kid Cool
"John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1g7g9tm.1ss5jps189lq0lN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> Peter H. Proctor <d...@drproctor.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:48:39 +0000 (UTC), "Kid Cool"
> > <kccsubATc...@giganews.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Reading the posts about Lev 19:19 got me thinking, what other quotes
from
> > >the bible could be used to support evolution?
> >
> > place, Laban promises his son-in-law Jacob all the future spotted
> > animals to be born in his flocks. He then removes the spotted animals
> > to elsewhere. He thus selects against spotted offspring in the flocks
> > Jacob has care of.
> >
> > In turn, Jacob develops a magical technique for making
> > breeding animals give birth to spotted offspring. But the bible
> > describes how he only uses this technique on the stronger animals,
> > thus selecting for stronger offspring. It is a small step from this
> > to "natural" selection.
> >
> We did this a month or so ago. I recall it all began with Ecc 3:19
>
> --
> John Wilkins
> "And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
>
Bad news everyone. I don't think we use Leviticus 19:19 as an arguement
that God recognizes "macro evolution" (kinds evolving). I went onto
www.biblegateway.com to search out the use of the word "kind." in the
Torah, or 5 books of Moses. I then went to http://www.bible.ort.org to
review the actual Hebrew. Since that is the original language, it is the
primary source. None of the translation issues and mistranslations that
permiate the KJV.
I found the following verses used a word lemino, leminah, leminehu which are
all variations on the same word. I found it translated as kind and family.
In Lev 19:19, I found the word kilayim, which is translated as "species."
The verses in question are:
Genesis
1:11
1:12
1:21
1:24
1:25
6:20
7:14
Leviticus
11:14
11:15
11:16
11:19
11:22
11:29
19:19 uses kilayim, not leminah
Deuteronomy
14:13
14:14
14:15
14:18
I think the argument would be much stronger, if Lev 19:19 used leminah,
lemino, leminehu. If anyone knows enough Hebrew, perhaps they can find
where else kilayim is used.
Kid Cool
Kid Cool
"John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1g7g9tm.1ss5jps189lq0lN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> Peter H. Proctor <d...@drproctor.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:48:39 +0000 (UTC), "Kid Cool"
> > <kccsubATc...@giganews.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Reading the posts about Lev 19:19 got me thinking, what other quotes
from
> > >the bible could be used to support evolution?