Should Evolution Be Taught In Public Schools?

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1643946' date='Sep 1 2008, 01:38 AM']What you quote above, "where did those dust particules [sic] come from", is actually a question of cosmogenesis -- how the universe began. The present theory is, of course, The Big Bang, which states that all matter currently in the universe was contained in a sphere the size of a basketball. This, of course, begs the question where this basketball came from, and it is where scientists are currently working to understand. Ultimately, according to St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments, there must have been some Prime Mover to have placed this basketball in existence in the first place. [b]But, the point is, the question that you raised has nothing to do with evolution.[/b][/quote]

They've answered that for the past 30 years, but most Atheistic Scientists will not agree to it.

You see, Mathematically, Stephen Hawking has proven that the Big Bang was caused by a cosmic singularity that exists outside of time and space, but for all the dimensions to exist, there has to be. . . three cosmic singularities that exists outside time and space. Because these singularities are one singularity, the three singularities are one.

Christianity also proposes that the universe and creation and all that we see and don't see was created by. . . The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the three who are one. . .

As a result, most Atheists scientists, which make a great number of them, will not accept this theory of the beginning of the universe or the theory of everything they want to find because they don't like Christianity and God. Their own bias prevents us from enjoying the fact that three cosmic three singularities - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, created everything from the moment creation was created.

And, the media will not play it either, well, because this might upset their readership/viewers, because Christians will around the world say, look, Science has proven us right. . . They can't have that, because it will cost them money.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1643143' date='Aug 31 2008, 02:26 AM'][url="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/edwards.html"]http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...aw/edwards.html[/url]

A law that required Louisiana teachers to teach creationism along with evolution was stricken down as unconstitutional. "The Creationism Act forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools unless accompanied by instruction in 'creation science.'"[/quote]

A pertinent quote from the article I posted: (you all should read it; it's very interesting.)
[quote]Whether the state’s board of education would adopt them, however, was unclear. There were heated objections from some religious organizations and local school boards. In a stormy public comment session, Mr. Campbell defended his fellow writers against complaints that they had not included alternative explanations for life’s diversity, like intelligent design.

His attempt at humor came with an edge:

“We also failed to include astrology, alchemy and the concept of the moon being made of green coagulated milk,” he said. “Because those aren’t science, either.”[/quote]

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1644144' date='Sep 1 2008, 10:54 AM']They've answered that for the past 30 years, but most Atheistic Scientists will not agree to it.

You see, Mathematically, Stephen Hawking has proven that the Big Bang was caused by a cosmic singularity that exists outside of time and space, but for all the dimensions to exist, there has to be. . . three cosmic singularities that exists outside time and space. Because these singularities are one singularity, the three singularities are one.

Christianity also proposes that the universe and creation and all that we see and don't see was created by. . . The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the three who are one. . .

As a result, most Atheists scientists, which make a great number of them, will not accept this theory of the beginning of the universe or the theory of everything they want to find because they don't like Christianity and God. Their own bias prevents us from enjoying the fact that three cosmic three singularities - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, created everything from the moment creation was created.

And, the media will not play it either, well, because this might upset their readership/viewers, because Christians will around the world say, look, Science has proven us right. . . They can't have that, because it will cost them money.[/quote]

Erm ... you have not shown that this three-fold singularity that exists outside of time and space is in fact God. You have only shown (or claim to have shown) that it shares traits in common with God: three-fold "singularity" (possible heresy, here, unsure), and that it is outside of time and space.

You know what they say about ducks, right? "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." Well, that's not always right. Just because some [b]thing[/b] looks like God doesn't make it God.

Furthermore, these singularities are no longer in existence, which would contradict God's eternal nature.

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1644299' date='Sep 1 2008, 01:01 PM']Erm ... you have not shown that this three-fold singularity that exists outside of time and space is in fact God. You have only shown (or claim to have shown) that it shares traits in common with God: three-fold "singularity" (possible heresy, here, unsure), and that it is outside of time and space.

You know what they say about ducks, right? "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." Well, that's not always right. Just because some [b]thing[/b] looks like God doesn't make it God.

Furthermore, these singularities are no longer in existence, which would contradict God's eternal nature.[/quote]

Again, we only mathematically proved that the three singularities existed during the creation of the universe.

I haven't gone too much into the science to know they are no longer in existence. How do you prove something outside time and space still exists or not, except mathematically?

I only know that they were needed to create the universe. It is the theory of everything that every atheistic scientist will not accept (hmmm, maybe there's a bias there) and still trying to come up with a different theory of everything because they rejected that one.

You can consider it heresy though. That's your option, and by doing so, you help the atheist scientists who will not accept this theory either.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1644333' date='Sep 1 2008, 01:28 PM']Again, we only mathematically proved that the three singularities existed during the creation of the universe.

I haven't gone too much into the science to know they are no longer in existence. How do you prove something outside time and space still exists or not, except mathematically?[/quote]

The definition of the singularity[ies] that created the universe involves their destruction. Basically, it's a bomb. It blew up, destroying the bomb itself. All of the shrapnel went on to become the universe. The bomb contained all of the pieces that are now the universe, and thus had to blow up (destroy itself) in order to spread those pieces across the universe. Thus, the singularities no longer exist.

Further, because the universe is made of pieces of this original explosion, to state that God was the singularity is to say that the universe is made up of tiny pieces of God, and that everything is God. This is pantheism.

[quote]You can consider it heresy though. That's your option, and by doing so, you help the atheist scientists who will not accept this theory either.[/quote]

The only part that I questioned was heresy was modelling the three singularities as a triune God. The dogma of the Trinity states that God is three persons who are one in being and essence. Stating that God is three different singularities that are separate and distinct from one another is heresy.

I do not care about "helping atheist scientists" to further their agenda. As a scientist myself, the only thing that I care about is Truth, in the absolute sense. I am only slightly familiar with the theory of three singularities, and can't comment on the theory's scientific validity. What concerns me, though, is attributing these three singularities to God, simply because there happen to be three of them and also three persons to the Trinity. It sounds like too much of a big deal made over a coincidence to me.

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1644361' date='Sep 1 2008, 01:44 PM']The definition of the singularity[ies] that created the universe involves their destruction. Basically, it's a bomb. It blew up, destroying the bomb itself. All of the shrapnel went on to become the universe. The bomb contained all of the pieces that are now the universe, and thus had to blow up (destroy itself) in order to spread those pieces across the universe. Thus, the singularities no longer exist.[/quote]

Okay, I didn't know that. But it is pretty cool that God would create the universe in a way that would declare who he is.

[quote][b]For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:[/b][/quote]

Wouldn't you agree, then, God using three singularities because God is three persons, declares his own nature? How about the components of atoms are Protons, Electrons and Neutrons. Or that length, width, and height make space, or that the Earth is 93,000,000 miles away - divisible by three, and if you did that three and one are left remaining, and a large amounts of other things that point out that God is three and one. But that must be heresy, because I said it.

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1644361' date='Sep 1 2008, 01:44 PM']Further, because the universe is made of pieces of this original explosion, to state that God was the singularity is to say that the universe is made up of tiny pieces of God, and that everything is God. This is pantheism.

The only part that I questioned was heresy was modelling the three singularities as a triune God. The dogma of the Trinity states that God is three persons who are one in being and essence. Stating that God is three different singularities that are separate and distinct from one another is heresy.[/quote]

Relax, now that you have explained it to me, I can see you are right.

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1644361' date='Sep 1 2008, 01:44 PM']I do not care about "helping atheist scientists" to further their agenda. As a scientist myself, the only thing that I care about is Truth, in the absolute sense. I am only slightly familiar with the theory of three singularities, and can't comment on the theory's scientific validity. What concerns me, though, is attributing these three singularities to God, simply because there happen to be three of them and also three persons to the Trinity. It sounds like too much of a big deal made over a coincidence to me.[/quote]

Or divine providence? Doesn't anybody read and meditate on the Bible here? The nature of the creation declares his power and the Godhead!

[add]

Why baptize newborns, were it not for original sin of Adam and Eve.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='apparently' post='1644910' date='Sep 1 2008, 08:33 PM']Why baptize newborns, were it not for original sin of Adam and Eve.[/quote]
Come again?

[Selah]

lol

[add]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1644919' date='Sep 1 2008, 08:45 PM']Come again?[/quote]
If mankind evolved from apes, not created then how could there be original sin.

[Vincent Vega]

In that case, it's argued that Adam and Eve would be our first fully human ancestors, which God then ensouled. This is what led to the fall, etc.

[geetarplayer]

Micro-evolution has observable data (finches on the Galapagos, etc) and is perfectly compatible with the Catholic faith. But Darwin's theory of macro-evolution, as I understand, does present some problems.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1642053' date='Aug 29 2008, 09:48 PM']The Origin of Species, itself an extraordinarily cogent argument for Darwinism was published in 1859, it is now 2008. Our entire scientific knowledge of biology, pharmaceuticals, and zoology is based on evolution. There is such a plethora of evidence that evolution is absolutely correct that is boggles the mind.
I suppose what stuns me is that, no offense, so many people could be so astonishingly ignorant. It’s not like are live in the backwoods of Vietnam, Americans have such an astonishing amount of information available to them, and they waste it.[/quote]

Machievelli's Prince has been around longer and I'm not so sure that one would be as anxious to say that what it contains is good and true- just because it has been around for a long time.
I also think that the entire scientific body of knowledge is NOT BASED on evolution, rather- evolution is based on the entire scientific body of knowledge...

Keep in mind that while there are plenty of evidences, there are also plenty of questions.

[quote name='geetarplayer' post='1644996' date='Sep 1 2008, 10:05 PM']Micro-evolution has observable data (finches on the Galapagos, etc) and is perfectly compatible with the Catholic faith. But Darwin's theory of macro-evolution, as I understand, does present some problems.[/quote]

But not necessarily to the faith. The thing about Darwin that presents a problem to the faith is the atheistic materialism. The idea that there is no spiritual aspect of life. That this is life IS all that there is. Darwin's philosophies and not his scientific theories are what cause the problems.

Evolution does not necessarily exclude creation/intelligent design. Neither does creationism exclude evolution. The point of Genesis is not to tell us meticulously HOW God created, but THAT God created AND that God created with a purpose, with intent.

The Hebrew word that is translated as "day" (i forget the word, I am sorry) is also translatable as "age". Besides that, God is outside of time - a thousand days are like a day to Him - In order for our hhuman minds to grasp the idea of God, we have to speak in terms of things that we know. Days. Now, this isn't to say that God did NOT create the world in a period of 6 24 hour days- He could have- but that we will not know. We do not know.

If you look at the theory of evolution- it coincides with biblical tellings of creation. First everything was in the sea, then land and so forth.

There is nothing wrong with the theory of evolution from the Church's perspective. AS LONG AS one keeps in mind that the point of science is not to disprove God- it is to explore His wonderful creation (and therefore lead us to find Him).

One of the "problems" with macro-evolution (and I am not a science major or anything so I could be wrong) is the fossil record. When certain types of animals begin to exist with seemingly no evolution.

That said: micro-evolution seems to be a plausible theory. Look at humans: we've grown taller and less broad and such.

There is no reason why evolution shouldn't be taught in schools. I've been to two throughly Catholic universities where it was taught.

[missionseeker]

Cardinal Newman: "the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill"

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='missionseeker' post='1645076' date='Sep 2 2008, 12:05 AM']Cardinal Newman: "the theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill"[/quote]

Cardinal Newman rawks my sawks!

[missionseeker]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1645111' date='Sep 1 2008, 11:40 PM']Cardinal Newman rawks my sawks![/quote]

Oooh yeah.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='missionseeker' post='1645121' date='Sep 2 2008, 12:46 AM']Oooh yeah.[/quote]

Cardinal Newman:

[img]http://bp3.blogger.com/_THUE-slvY88/R8XN_dzTFmI/AAAAAAAAAsY/knrTzs3TISc/s320/Kool-AidMan.jpg[/img]

[mommas_boy]

And I almost forgot ...

Archbishop Fulton Sheen gets a:

[img]http://i.xanga.com/TheUltimateTofu/quagmire.JPG[/img]

Giggity giggity!

Edited September 2, 2008 by mommas_boy

[missionseeker]

[Balthazor]

I do not think I am qualified reply to this, since I went tp public school......
But both were taught in my school, and it was barely touched on really, I also know about the flying spagetti monster.
I think it is important to at least hear different ideas.
I mean what good is faith if it is never challenged?
I understand the importance of portecting children and raising them with good values but it is also important to teach children HOW to think and not only WHAT to think.