So there are four-legged creatures that fly that are good eatin'?
Posted on 12/26/2005 8:37:06 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Questioned about the national debate over ''intelligent design,'' [Florida] Gov. Jeb Bush last week said he's more interested in seeing some evolution of the science standards that Florida public school students must meet.
He wants those standards to become more rigorous -- and raising the standards should take priority over discussing whether intelligent design has a place in the public schools' curriculum, he said.
Nationally, the discussion over whether to teach intelligent design -- a concept that says life is too complex to have occurred without the involvement of a higher force -- in public school classes heated up after U.S. District Judge John E. Jones ruled that it smacked of creationism and was a violation of church and state separation. (President Bush appointed Jones to the federal bench in 2004.)
Jones, in his decision, wrote that the concept of intelligent design ''cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents,'' according to a Knight Ridder News Service report published Wednesday in The Miami Herald. [PH here: For a more reliable source than the Herald, here's the judge's opinion (big pdf file).]
In Florida, education officials and science teachers will be reviewing the state's science curriculum in 2007 or 2008, after the governor has left office, and ''it is possible that people would make an effort to include [intelligent design] in the debate,'' Gov. Bush told The Watchdog Report on Wednesday. ''My personal belief is we ought to look at whether our standards are high first,'' he said.
SCIENCE FIRST
``The more important point is science itself and how important it is, and we right now have adequate standards that may need to be raised. But worse: Students are not given the course work necessary to do well with those standards.''
Bush, after meeting with Coral Gables Mayor Don Slesnick and city commissioners concerning the community's widespread power outages after hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, also noted that the federal ruling came in a case that involves Pennsylvania's Dover Area School District.
''It is one school district in Pennsylvania,'' he said.
POINT OF VIEW
The Watchdog Report asked a follow-up question: Does the governor believe in Darwin's theory of evolution?
Bush said: ``Yeah, but I don't think it should actually be part of the curriculum, to be honest with you. And people have different points of view and they can be discussed at school, but it does not need to be in the curriculum.''
Right about what? Its always interesting to hear what folks think Darwin hypothesized.
The specific Darwinian theory that is referenced by those with science backgrounds is basically the #1 - "survival of the fittest" observation but with special reference to the fact that #2 - some survival "accessories" were due to mutations and that these may be passed along.
Mendel pretty much put all that to rest with his poppies.
So what is it you think the Darwin theorized - or do you doubt #s 1 and 2 above??
There are those who disagree with you.
"Evolution is a lie. Science does not equal evolution. Science is compatible with creation." ~ gedeon3
Which one of the theories of evolution / explanations of mechanisms are you talking about? Define your terms.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evo-pope.html
Evolution and the Pope Rich Milne
Are Science and Religion at War?
We have just passed the one hundredth anniversary of one of the more important books written about the interaction of science and Christianity. The book's title, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, says much about the book.
Andrew White wrote the book in 1896 to justify his belief that a university should be without any religious affiliation. He was the founder and first president of Cornell University in New York and was very outspoken in his views about the hindrance religion has been to scientific progress. It was White who popularized the view that there was a war between science and Christianity, and that in all cases science had ultimately been shown to be right.
A History of the Warfare of Science and Theology in Christendom is one long polemic attempting to show that religion has always held back the advance of science. The author maintains that if only theology would quit sticking its nose into the tent of science, everyone would be better off. Well into this century the book was regarded as being an important statement on the tension between science and religion.
One hundred years, however, has changed the tone of the discussion. Today many historians of science would agree that Christianity was a significant foundation for modern science, even though it is now viewed as an outmoded belief. For several reasons, then, it came to be commonly accepted that Christianity had played a key role in preparing the way for the development of modern science. First, Christians assumed they lived in a world that could be understood because it was created by a rational God--the same God who had also created them. This gave early scientists some reason to assume that nature might obey laws that could be known. Speaking about the view of the universe that the Church gave to the culture around it, the great mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead said early in this century, "When we compare this tone of thought [the faith in reason and the regularity of the universe] in Europe with the attitude of other civilizations when left to themselves, there seems but one source for its origin. It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God."
Second, not only was the universe understandable because a rational God made it, but the Bible encouraged believers to look at God's creation for signs of His handiwork. For example, as early as the Psalms David had proclaimed, "The heavens are telling of the glory of God" (Ps. 19:1). Scriptures such as this one, and many others, encouraged Christians to study nature to understand how it glorified God. Christians were confident that nature's design would show forth God's glory.
However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries much happened that eroded Christian confidence that they lived in a world crafted by God. In particular, Darwin's theory (that all organisms were descended from a common ancestor and that any appearances of design could be explained by natural selection working over long periods of time) came to have great acceptance among almost all scientists. For many the theory of evolution came to be seen as the complete answer as to why the world is as it is. For them, there was no need at all for a Creator or God to explain anything because evolution could, or would, explain everything.
A notable example of this position is the famous statement by astronomer Carl Sagan, "The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be." With these words he began his immensely popular series about the universe, Cosmos. His words are the creed of the materialist (i.e., if it can be counted, measured, observed, experimented on, understood by natural laws, then it is real). Anything else is either meaningless or, at least, not scientific. According to this view, mountain goats are real because we can see them, touch them, put them in zoos. Angels, on the other hand, are not real because we can do none of these things to them. Science has to do with facts, and if there is any place for religion it is in the consideration of morals or ethics or those other areas where there are no facts.
But some people, such as Stephen Gould, a palaeontologist at Harvard, have remained open to dialogue on how religion and science can coexist. In his monthly column for Natural History magazine, he recently put forth his latest elaboration of how evolution, science, and religion are related. His proposed resolution of this issue is the theme of this essay.
Stephen Gould, the evolutionary writer and scientist, addresses what are the proper bounds of science and religion in a recent Natural History magazine. He proposes a complete answer to the problem of how they relate to one another. Simply put, they don't interact at all. "The net of science," says Gould, "covers the empirical universe: what it is made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap."
The Roman Catholic Church uses the term magisterium to refer to its authority to teach in areas relating to the Bible and its interpretation. Gould borrows this term and applies it as well to the legitimate area that science teaches. So the Church may speak about moral issues and science about matters of fact and theory. For this somewhat unbalanced division he creates the wonderful phrase "nonoverlapping magisteria."
Has the Pope's View of Evolution Evolved?
Gould is certainly free to pontificate. However, what is somewhat mystifying is how he draws in Pope John Paul II as a prime supporter not only of his interesting distinction between science and religion, but also as a firm supporter of evolution!
On October 22, 1996, Pope John Paul addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The theme of their conference was to be the origin of life and evolution, so John Paul helpfully laid out what the Church had said over the last fifty years.
The Pope made clear that his predecessor, Pope Pius XI, had "considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' a serious hypothesis." But, John Paul says, "Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical [of Pius XI], new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. 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."
That is as far as John Paul's statement goes: evolution has moved from a serious hypothesis to a theory with significant arguments in its favor. Yet from this statement, Gould triumphantly draws an amazing observation:
In conclusion, Pius had grudgingly admitted evolution as a legitimate hypothesis that he regarded as only tentatively supported and potentially (as I suspect he hoped) untrue. John Paul, almost fifty years later...adds that additional data and theory have placed the factuality of evolution beyond reasonable doubt. Sincere Christians must now accept evolution not merely as a plausible possibility, but also as an effectively proven fact.
Is this really what the Pope said? We'll now look more carefully at Gould's interpretation of the Pope's statement.
Does Evolution Fit the Truth About Man?
Stephen Gould, writing in Natural History, makes the Pope say something far more significant, and from Gould's point of view, a concession of defeat. How does Gould paraphrase John Paul's statement? "Sincere Christians must now accept evolution not merely as a plausible possibility, but also as an effectively proven fact."
Nevertheless, either by reading too rapidly or possessing too much enthusiasm for his own position, Gould misses critical distinctions that the Pope's announcement makes. To argue that the Pope's statement ("new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis") means that "sincere Christians must now accept evolution not merely as a plausible possibility, but also as an effectively proven fact" is ludicrous. Gould almost twists the Pope's statement to contradict what he does say.
In fact, in his next paragraph, the Pope states: "A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them....Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like evolution complies with the need for consistency with observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy."
"Metascientific" means going beyond the realms of science into an abstract, philosophical arena. So, the Pope says, evolution is more than a hypothesis; it is a theory, but as such, it also is "distinct from the result of observation" and borrows from philosophy. His next statement is one Gould may have skipped over:
"And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. "
So, rather than saying the words Gould puts in his mouth, the Pope actually says that not only is evolution based on a philosophy, but there are several theories, and he goes on to rule out some of them, at least for Roman Catholics.
"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."
Gould wants the Pope to say, "You talk about science, and I'll talk about religion. You can have the world of facts, and I'll take what's left. These areas won't overlap with each other, and we'll each stay in our own gardens."
But the Pope is unwilling to follow Gould's convenient (for science) scheme. Instead, he firmly declares "The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man." This is what all of us who are Christians should be saying.
Evolution, as it is usually put forward, is not just a theory about ancient data. It is also a philosophical statement about where man came from and what, if any, importance he has.
While Gould claims his scientific views are not related to his moral views, his words give little support to this.
Is Christianity Concerned About Evolutionary Theories?
Early in his essay Gould has dispatched creationists with a few quick paragraphs. "Creationism does not pit science against religion, for no such conflict exists. Creationism does not raise any unsettled intellectual issues about the nature of biology or the history of life. Creationism is a local and parochial movement, powerful only in the United States among Western nations, and prevalent only among the few sectors of American Protestantism that choose to read the Bible as an inerrant document, literally true in every jot and tittle."
Well, so much for a fair, informed assessment of one's opponents.
First he defines out of existence what creationists see as a central argument by merely saying "no such conflict exists."
Then he proceeds to caricature creationists as a fringe group only found among a small group of Protestants.
Prior to this he has equated "scientific creation," the view that the earth was created in six days and "only a few thousand years old," with all of creationism, which he fails to note includes even those who believe in evolution and an earth billions of years old, but believe God superintended the process.
Gould's claim that "creationism does not raise any unsettled issues" ignores significant questions that have been raised about how life first arose from chemicals, about the source of the genetic code, and of the origination of new biological structures.
But does the Pope truly believe in Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria? Gould's summation of the opening of John Paul's speech is that he "begins by summarizing Pius's older encyclical of 1950, and particularly reaffirming the NOMA principle [nonoverlapping magisteria] nothing new here."
Is this really what the Pope said?
He begins by saying that "the origins of life and evolution [are] an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teachings concerning the nature and origins of man. . . . I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence."
This hardly sounds like there is no overlap between what the Church teaches and science.
Toward the end of his remarks John Paul flatly contradicts Gould's neat distinction: "The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution for it involves the conception of man."
So it would seem that Gould has used those parts of the Pope's speech which he likes and disregarded the rest.
Two points are important here.
First, while Gould sets forth an interesting view about the relationship between science and religion and gives a new name to what used to be called "complementarity," it is not the view espoused by the Pope, and is almost antithetical to it.
Second, Gould himself does not abide by this strict separationism in his own views, even when he claims to. When Gould actually makes his own moral position clear, it is hard to escape the conclusion that it comes directly from his views and philosophy as a scientist.
Why Trust Your Mind If No One Made It?
"As a moral position...I prefer the 'cold bath' theory that nature can be truly 'cruel' and 'indifferent.'" This is the summary of Harvard paleontologist Stephen Gould in his Natural History essay on how science and religion should relate to each other. "Science," Gould says, "covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work (theory)." Religion is left to cover "questions of moral meaning and value."
Gould calls his position nonoverlapping magisteria and claims the Pope holds the same view. As we stated earlier, this is far from true. But Gould then goes on to describe the moral view he takes.
Gould's position, which he immediately claims is not "a deduction from my knowledge of nature's factuality" is "nature was not constructed as our eventual abode, didn't know we were coming... and doesn't give a ______ about us (speaking metaphorically)."
He says he finds such a view "liberating...because we then become free to conduct moral discourse...in our own terms, spared from the delusion that we might read moral truth passively from nature's factuality."
It is indeed hard not to draw the conclusion that Gould has read his view about the process of evolution into his own moral position.
How does he know that nature was not constructed for us if not from his studies of the natural world?
How would he know it doesn't care about us unless somehow he saw this in his studies? Where else might he get such ideas?
In his speech, Pope John Paul II spoke quite candidly of his view of evolution:
"And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations."
Stephen Gould has a materialist philosophy behind his theory of evolution.
He believes that the material universe is all that exists, and that our own consciousness is a chance phenomena and does not come from a Creator.
So, for Gould, where else can he draw his views about the meaning of life and what might be moral?
His very thinking is a chance product of evolutionary processes that had no design, either to produce man or to give him a mind.
Nonetheless, Gould trusts his mind not only to be able to distinguish between science and religion, he is sure that they should not influence one another.
Gould's view is a version of what is the common denominator of much of science today.
At all costs religion must be kept out of science, or else science will cease to exist.
Only material answers can be given to any question because the intervention of a Creator would negate the laws that govern science.
What is missed in all of this is that without a Creator of some kind, not only is there no basis to trust the human mind to make true observations, but there is no reason to suppose that it would matter.
Why worry about science or religion, and certainly why worry about whether they could have a negative effect on each other? If there is no God, there can only be arbitrary judgments. It is God who gives meaning to what we say and believe.
Christians serve a rational God who made both them and the world. On what does Gould base his trust in either science or the mind?
Survival of the fittest is a tautology and all known mutations are detrimental. Not much to hang any sort of a theory of how everything got here on.
Yes, although it is only a very general description of natural selection, which isn't a tautology
and all known mutations are detrimental.
That isn't true
"Science is a discipline of observation, hypothesis construction, testing, modification of hypothesis with the prospect of developing sufficient support or refutation of a theory.
Let me know how that works out for evolution.
Actually, it's workd out pretty well:
Observation - we see, for example, various fossils trapped in stone. Looking closer, we notice that the simplest (one-cell) fossils are always on the bottom, with increasingly more complex creatures as you go higher up the layers. The age of each layer also decreases as you go up...
And then using the brains that GOD GAVE US, it's not a stretch to suppose that life may have evolved from the simple to the complex. Good old common sense (God gave us that too).
Sure beats the magic "bing, it's there" proposal.
Whoa - you got me. Dang.
...and all known mutations are detrimental. Really, detrimental to who or whom? Those crafty penicillinase-resistant streptococci are very much glad to have a mutation that allows them to live in the presence of penicillin. To them that little mutation is not a detriment.
Not much to hang any sort of a theory of how everything got here on. Who is trying for the "how everything got here" thing?
Tautology indeed. Welcome to FR.
"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also he has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.” Ecclesiastes 3:11
Isn`t there other things that you find interesting here at FR?
So there are four-legged creatures that fly that are good eatin'?
Leviticus 11:21
Its a shame Jeb Bush is the brother to a current President. He otherwise would have been the perfect choice for 2008.
Wrong.
Science does not equal evolution.
Right, because science covers more than just evolution. But evolution is science.
Science is compatible with creation.
If you mean it's compatbile with the Universe, you're right. If you mean it's compatible with every version of what different people believe about how the Universe was formed, you're incorrect.
So there are four-legged creatures that fly that are good eatin'?
So, as it says in Leviticus, bats are birds and, as it says in Joshua, the sun moves around the earth.
Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science. What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community. (21:37-38 (Behe); Fuller Dep. at 98-101, June 21, 2005; 28:47 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 89, May 26, 2005). P. 70 [emphasis added]
If the DEFENSE EXPERT WITNESSES conceded that ID does NOT meet the prevailing professionally recognized definition of a "scientific theory," by what rights does ANYONE claim ID to be scientific?
There are two options:
1. Teach ID.
2. Video tape every presentation and fire any teachers presenting a, long known incorrect facts based on faked evidence of evolution, or b, using evolution as a absis for blasting religion and teaching athiesm which is religious in this context.
:)
The answer to your question is -- Yes, lots of other things on this website interest me. It's a big source of my daily input for news. But these evolution threads are unique. Nowhere else can I find such entertaining interaction involving large numbers of conservatives who are either: (a) truly educated and intelligent people; or (b) truly un-educated people with no rational capacity whatsoever. It's fascinating.
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.