Posted on 05/07/2005 1:26:46 PM PDT by followerofchrist
TOPEKA, Kan. - Witnesses trying to persuade Kansas officials to encourage more criticism of evolution in public school classrooms are making statements some scientists say betrayed creationist views.
Witnesses in a State Board of Education hearing on how the theory should be taught also have acknowledged they hadn't fully read evolution-friendly science standards proposed by educators. Nor had two of three presiding board members.
snip
Board member Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, elicited groans of disbelief from a few audience members when she acknowledged she had only scanned the proposal, which is more than 100 pages. Later, board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis, also said she had only scanned it.
Martin said during a break: "I'm not a word-for-word reader in this kind of technical information."
(Excerpt) Read more at home.peoplepc.com ...
There is also the somewhat "in between" position that I think you and stremba would be comfortable with. The TOE is theistic in that God is (was) the "Prime Mover", i.e. his creation, but since then he has played no part. This "theistic" part could also be extended to the mechanisms of evolution and maybe even the "direction" (although I don't like that part myself). This would make the TOE a hybrif thing and I think many evolutionists would be happy here. Why creationists can't be comfortable with this is beyond me, especially for those who are not 6 day people.
There are problems with obliquity, aren't there? But I appreciate the Dickens ref.
Pope John Paul II didn't appear to have a problem with it either, but I believe a lot of posters here would deny the Pope was a Christian.
This implies that they have some "hidden" agenda that this "willful ignorance" will help them to attain.Well, it's just that my experience with the arguments of garden-variety creationists tells me that most of them don't know much about science, but they trust that their religious leaders & religiously-inspired authors/lecturers do know what they're talking about and that they are telling them the truth.
Would you like to elaborate on this?
The creationists are convinced that morality & societal order depends on creationism being true, because their religious sects tell them that the natural world provides no objective criteria by which to judge people's actions as good or bad. If this is so, then there's no way to adjudicate disputes, and it'll always turn into rule by whoever's the most ruthless in pursuit of their goals. Therefore, "if God didn't exist we'd have to invent him".
When a person is motivated by such a (misguided) fear, that's a strong motivator for refusing to understand something that seems contrary to it.
He, he, he. I realize it's not his intent, but Provine could be describing the "Intelligent Designer" in that passage. After all one of the effective rules of the Intelligent Design strategy is that we must never make any specific proposals about what the ID did, or when it did whatever (we won't say) it did, or how it did what (we won't say) it did. We're only allowed to "infer" the existence of an "Intelligent Designer," but must carefully avoid any "detection" of his action on or in the world.
This characteristic vacuity of the "Intelligent Design Proposal" has, of course, not a thing to do with science. Indeed this central aspect of ID is exactly opposite to the tendencies of authentic science, which advances theories be actively focusing attention on aspects of reality or "problem situations" that even an otherwise successful theory addresses or clarifies inadequately.
The real reason for this suppression of substance is the function of ID as a lowest common denominator of antievolutionary creationism. Creationists disagree wildly among themselves about just what the Creator created, when He created it (and whether once or progressively), and so on. Old earth creationists, young earthers, progressive creationists, special creationists, flood geologists, canopy theorists, and on and on, even the odd geocentrist, used to devote much of their energy to battling each other and trying to control the antievolution movement. ID, precisely because it is almost entirely lacking in substance, is an umbrella thay can all stand under.
There's obviously some real idiots running the show in Kansas. With the sad state our public schools are in today, it's a real shame that so-called conservatives would choose to make fools of themselves attacking science. Imagine if they would put the same effort into contesting socialism as they do biology.
I see nothing, however, in the statement you quoted that contradicts JPII's statement on the matter. Following are a few selections. Following those will be a link to the website where I found them (I am aware there are conflicting translations of the statement, which I believe was originally delivered in French). The bolding in the third paragraph is mine.
In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.
4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
5. The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar constitution Gaudium et Spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought. It recalled that man is "the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake" (No. 24). In other terms, the human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society; he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect, for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God's relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica I-II:3:5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfillment beyond time, in eternity. All the depth and grandeur of this vocation are revealed to us in the mystery of the risen Christ (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 22). It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36). Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.
I believe the Pope's meaning is clear: Belief in evolutionary theory is not contrary to Catholic teaching, as long as the Catholic believes that man's soul is special and precious to God.
Here's the source: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm
Actually I served up this softball for you because there are people who are not ignorant, but act as if they were because of their "hidden agendas". They purposely fight what they know is right and good to either advance themselves or prevent the advance of those who are, or that which is, deserving. These are Toohey evil people who prey on the simple minded for their own aggrandizement.
Lest you think these do not exist, I can say that I have met some. I would rather be in a pit of vipers than anywhere near them. And I think there are some here, too.
Obviously this is not my proposal. I only brought it up because it is possible for Evolution to be theistic in its origin, but atheistic in its operation.
I, personally, waffle between being somewhat comfortable and somewhat uncomfortable with this position (mostly un though).
I agree completely, but obviously there are FReepers who do not. From what I can tell, they tend to be on the theistic side of the argument. I can't recall any of the evo's claiming that one couldn't be an evolutionist and believe in God. Or gods.
The theory of evolution is atheistic in exactly the same manner that the theory of equations is atheistic or that the theory of relativity is atheistic.
Ah. I haven't met any of the leaders of creationism, and since they generally tend to be political conservatives I tend to assume they're simply misguided.
"Bowling for Topeka"?
Most are people untouched by Crevo "debates". They are almost always political animals.
Thanks for the ping!
That's what I suspect!
Natural selection is not necessarily mindless or impresonal if the laws of nature were designed by a personal God. And the question of whether such a God exists or designed such laws is beyond the scope of science. Therefore, any scientist who claims science demands the acceptance of evolution as impersonal is simply not acting as a scientist, but a theologian, and an incompetent one at that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.