PA town turned back on God

[God's Errand Girl]

It seems to me that your good time is being wasted in this "discussion" . You can't suade someone who does not have an open mind. And the heart can't be suaded either, unless the Holy Spirit beckons it.

[JP2Iloveyou]

The thing people misunderstand about intelligient design is that they think it replaces the theory of evolution. It doesn't replace it, it suppliments it. Catholics have nothing against the theory of eveolution, per se. They simply acknowledge that if this is how life came into existence, it is because of God's guidance.

The fact of the matter is that science is wrong all the time. Every day, there are new scientific discoveries which at least call into question previously held beliefs. The problem I have with evolution is that it is taught as scientific fact. The very fact that it is called the Theory of Evolution implies that it is not a scientific fact.

In fact, I recently read an article attempting to incorporate Thomas' idea of substantial form into the modern sciences. In one case, a molecular biologist suggested, following an experiment, that bacteria controlled their own evolution. The problem this presents for the modern scientist is that science has always suggested that evolution happens from a bottom up perspective. In other words, the smallest particles (atoms, molecules, and cells) drive the evolution of the organism. What this reputable scientist is suggesting was that based off of his experiment, the bacteria he was analyzing evolved from a top down perspective. The bacteria were controlling it themselves to adapt to the situation he had inserted them into.

What does all this mean? It means that science can be, and often is, wrong. If we are truly interested in presenting our children with a non-biased curriculum, striving for truth, then it seems to me that intelligient design ought to be taught in the public schools. At the very least, if we are not going to teach it, then we ought not teach evolution as theology.

[Guest Not Chris Zewe]

[quote]The fact of the matter is that science is wrong all the time. Every day, there are new scientific discoveries which at least call into question previously held beliefs. The problem I have with evolution is that it is taught as scientific fact. The very fact that it is called the Theory of Evolution implies that it is not a scientific fact.[/quote]

The fact is that no science curriculum calls evolution a fact. It's called a [i]theory[/i] for a reason. Aside from that, though, the [b]theory[/b] of evolution has science backing it, while intelligent design has...blind faith, and the intrinsic human need for a sense of balance. That isn't science. I have no problems with intelligent design being taught as a theory in a philosophy classroom, but not in a science one. End of story.

[JP2Iloveyou]

But, don't you see? You really have identified the problem. The problem is not that evolution is taught, it is that it is taught as a FACT, when in fact, it has many holes in it. I illustrated one for you above. The problem is that students are not presented with these facts. If you don't want intelligient design (philosophy, as you call it) taught in a science classroom, then don't teach evolution as philosophy either. Teach it as science, and in doing so, point out the evidence in favor of it, and the evidence that speaks against it.

I would argue that every bit of evidence we have in the theory of evolution actually points to intelligient design as being more true. Something came from nothing, which is what supporters of the Big Bang Theory expect us to believe. They also expect us to believe that one of the basic rules of biology, that cells can only come from other cells, was violated once and only once in the history of the universe--when the first cell came into existence. (Note, I agree with this, that the first cell obviously didn't come from another cell and that all subsequent cells derive from that one, but I do not agree that a bunch of hydrocarbons randomly combined to form that one first cell and it hasn't happened since.) I'm taking an Astronomy class right now, and I am more amazed every day at the complexity of the universe. When we look around and see order, we don't assume to ourselves that said object ordered itself. (For example, my computer didn't build itself. Someone had to actually put all the parts together in the right way for it to work.) Yet, so many scientists want us to believe that the most complex things known to mankind (the universe, the human body, our planet, etc) formed out of nothing and organized themselves. Sorry, but it just doesn't make any sense. Now perhaps we can make the case that what I have just layed out should not be taught in a science class. Fine. Then the opposite should not be taught either. I.e. that something came from nothing, that the earth randomly was ordered the way it is today, that the human body is nothing more than a complex organization or atoms and is substantially no different than a pencil, etc, etc. Most secularists want to have it both ways demonstrating their blatant hypocrisy.

Edited November 11, 2005 by JP2Iloveyou

[JP2Iloveyou]

bump. I'd really like to see Not Chris Zewe's response to this.

[PadreSantiago]

pat robertson is crazy