Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Dulcamara on November 01, 2007, 10:16:35 PM
-
I read about this upcoming movie on creationism and scientific censorship in the Remnant, and just found it's website. Under the news section, there are some pretty interesting reads... This one in particular.
Darwinism - too old to be true? (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2007/10/25/darwinism;_too_old-fashioned_to_be_true?page=full&comments=true)
You can get all the info about the movie (out in Feb. 2008 unless the darwinists have their way!) right here...
Expelled the movie (http://www.expelledthemovie.com/home.php)
It'll be pretty awesome if this actually gets out of the box!
-
I've seen the previews and they look excellent. I'm hoping many good families see this movie to help them.
-
Living organisms simply stay stubbornly what they are. Dogs have their nature. So does man, although man has his own intellect and a free will unlike the lower animals. Darwinism though tries to put man at the same level as lower animals. Thus, now that I realize it, this putting of man at a lower level is related to the putting of man equal to or above God in that there is a displacement of man from the nature God gave him.
-
It'll be nice to hear just what's been going on in the field of science in this regard, and to finally see it made public that freedom of speech is being granted only to the opposition here.
Of course evolution is wrong, but rarely do we hear anyone get the chance to say so in the mainstream media. This is expected to hit theaters, it seems. One can only cross one's fingers and hope.
-
Ben Stein being interviewed about Intelligent Design (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWMGD1Dg6L8)
-
-
Great to know. Perhaps many people would come to realize now that Dawrinism is such a stupid thing.
Let's hope and pray!
-
I'm a bit puzzled by this thread.
While I'm glad to see that I.D. is rightfully recognized as creationism in disguise... a way to bring some form of creationism in science classes, I don't understand that Trads would applaud it.
-
I can understand it.
I find it very refreshing.
Before Vatican II American Catholics had such a revolting "Me Too" attitude towards the Modern World. It was weird. On the one hand they had such a chip on their shoulders about bucking the Modern World on belief in God and the Virgin Birth and the indissolubility of marriage and so forth. It was as though they had an irresistible cimpulsion to make it up to the Modern World by dint of contrary backlash. So they went all out to prove themselved true children of the Enlightenment in whatever way they could get away with.
They made a mockery of the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church of Rome. They turned the notion of Invincible Ignorance into the Eight Sacrament.
They started to whittle away at belief in the miracles of the Old Testament. They started to get diabolically foxy in this area. They made it an act of Romanist piety to DOUBT that Lot's wife really turned around for a peek and got turned into a pillar of salt. They posited Catholics who insisted on Taking It Literally as being suspect of heresy: the heresy of Protestant Fundamentalism.
They embraced Darwinism. They didn't think that Jehovah would mind. They said, "Oh, there will be room for Him too, somewhere in there, if we work hard enough and squeeze Him in the back door according to our own theological lights. Not that we have to offend the sensibilities of our good scientific atheist friends and neighbors by reminding them of His existence and of the data of Revelation."
I don't understand why someone wouldn't understand why Trads would applaud the science of Intelligent Design. Even some Novus Ordo conservatives seem sympatheric to it.
And how do we feel about bringing the lousy, sentimental poetry of Atheism into science classes under cover of Modern Science?
How do we feel about telling kids raised on the Heavenly Father Whose eye is on the sparrow that whereas our benighed medieval forebears felt cozy and at home on their flat earth under the eye of their all-good and all-wise Creator, we moderns know that we are just a singularly advanced colony of apes hurtling through a universe in which all ideas of meaning and order and right and wrong and truth and falsehood are chimerical?
In discussions among Catholics of Intelligent Design and Creationism and what Pope Pius XII allowed and what he didn't there should always be constant reference to the question of Adam and Eve, a point on which Pope Pius XII did not budge. To say the least, Modern Science does not take Adam and Eve seriously.
Catholic are required to take it as an historical fact that all mankind is really descended from one man and one woman who really lived in a state of bliss somewhere on this earth and really sinned and really got kicked out, so to speak, from their Paradise. How that relates to the cavemen is something we all have to puzzle out. The Evolutionary model of how mankind developed -men mating with animals for ages until, happily, Cupid was able to bring the equally evolved together-is as unconvincing as it is disgusting.
-
I don't understand why someone wouldn't understand why Trads would applaud the science of Intelligent Design. Even some Novus Ordo conservatives seem sympatheric to it.
Thank you for your response.
I had the perception that Novus Ordo conservatives are generally more open to creative solutions, like I.D. , which sits somewhere between evolution and creation.
Seems I am wrong.
-
Well, I don't know about your being wrong.
My point is that Intelligent Design would seem to be right up the Trad alley. I don't get why you were puzzled that Trads would applaud its introduction into science classes.
Now I don't get why you place ID midway between evolution and creation when before you said that it was the latter in disguise.
-
My point is that Intelligent Design would seem to be right up the Trad alley. I don't get why you were puzzled that Trads would applaud its introduction into science classes.
Simply put, I thought that the members of this board where more fundamentalist in their interpretation of the genesis account. Likely that there is a whole range of view on the matter.
Now I don't get why you place ID midway between evolution and creation when before you said that it was the latter in disguise.
I do view I.D. as neither evolution or creationism. I see it as a theory designed with the intent to inject religion in science classes. Thus being somewhere between both, or one disguised as the other.
You'll probably rightly read that I don't believe in I.D. and neither in the literal account of Genesis. But I am not here to discuss my point of view, as I don't want to, in the process be harmful to someones belief.
For example, I am interested to see how someone can be sympathetic to I.D. for the obvious reasons of it's charm, but at the same time, play it safe and believe in geocentrism in obedience to tradition.
-
As ID is merely pointing out the obvious, any man with reason ought to applaud any merit in it.
-
All contingent beings point to a necessary Being who gave them existence. "Nothing comes from nothing" is a rather simple statement of the truth.
-
All contingent beings point to a necessary Being who gave them existence. "Nothing comes from nothing" is a rather simple statement of the truth.
The above a fine philosophical argument that deserves it's full light in philosophy class. But I.D. poses has a scientific argument against evolution for science class.
-
I can understand it.
I find it very refreshing.
Before Vatican II American Catholics had such a revolting "Me Too" attitude towards the Modern World. It was weird. On the one hand they had such a chip on their shoulders about bucking the Modern World on belief in God and the Virgin Birth and the indissolubility of marriage and so forth. It was as though they had an irresistible cimpulsion to make it up to the Modern World by dint of contrary backlash. So they went all out to prove themselved true children of the Enlightenment in whatever way they could get away with.
They made a mockery of the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church of Rome. They turned the notion of Invincible Ignorance into the Eight Sacrament.
They started to whittle away at belief in the miracles of the Old Testament. They started to get diabolically foxy in this area. They made it an act of Romanist piety to DOUBT that Lot's wife really turned around for a peek and got turned into a pillar of salt. They posited Catholics who insisted on Taking It Literally as being suspect of heresy: the heresy of Protestant Fundamentalism.
They embraced Darwinism. They didn't think that Jehovah would mind. They said, "Oh, there will be room for Him too, somewhere in there, if we work hard enough and squeeze Him in the back door according to our own theological lights. Not that we have to offend the sensibilities of our good scientific atheist friends and neighbors by reminding them of His existence and of the data of Revelation."
I don't understand why someone wouldn't understand why Trads would applaud the science of Intelligent Design. Even some Novus Ordo conservatives seem sympatheric to it.
And how do we feel about bringing the lousy, sentimental poetry of Atheism into science classes under cover of Modern Science?
How do we feel about telling kids raised on the Heavenly Father Whose eye is on the sparrow that whereas our benighed medieval forebears felt cozy and at home on their flat earth under the eye of their all-good and all-wise Creator, we moderns know that we are just a singularly advanced colony of apes hurtling through a universe in which all ideas of meaning and order and right and wrong and truth and falsehood are chimerical?
In discussions among Catholics of Intelligent Design and Creationism and what Pope Pius XII allowed and what he didn't there should always be constant reference to the question of Adam and Eve, a point on which Pope Pius XII did not budge. To say the least, Modern Science does not take Adam and Eve seriously.
Catholic are required to take it as an historical fact that all mankind is really descended from one man and one woman who really lived in a state of bliss somewhere on this earth and really sinned and really got kicked out, so to speak, from their Paradise. How that relates to the cavemen is something we all have to puzzle out. The Evolutionary model of how mankind developed -men mating with animals for ages until, happily, Cupid was able to bring the equally evolved together-is as unconvincing as it is disgusting.
Excellent post!
-
Thank you.
Different Traditional Catholics have different views on the age of the universe and the development of lower species and so forth.
But all believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Even the few who are so far bent over backwards in the 1950s Me Too attitude towards Modern Science that they seem to support an argument for descent from scungilli.
I take the point that so-called Intelligent Design science might seem to be not "fundamentalist" enough for some Traditonal Catholics. But isn't that being a little hard on Traditional Catholics? To suppose that no one gets the distinction between what can be known to Reason and what it known by Revelation?
It's always upsetting to see simple believers tripped up when Rationalists pull Aquinas out of their sleeve as someone who did NOT believe that Creation in time can be deduced by reason from what is observable. But sometimes we have to learn the hard way. Believers can and do err by confusing what is known by faith with what is known by reason and introducing the disciplines of theology into the discipline of science.
But they never err in this way anywhere near as badly as the Godless sons of Belial who call themselves Modern Scientists do. The Darwinists, for example. The Apostles of the Will To Power. The prim little acolytes of Meaninglessness.
Probably more Traditional Catholics today than run-of-the-mill Catholics fifty years ago know their Angelic Doctor well enough to know that he DID teach that a Prime Mover and an Uncaused Cause can be deduced by reason.
It seems unfair to make such a bugaboo of the "intrusion" of Faith into the science class and to ignore the fact that nowadays moronic blasphemies and nihilistic histrionics (" evolved apes hurtling to doom in the endless black of a meaningless cosmos") are like Ned and Nellie in the primer.
-
I take the point that so-called Intelligent Design science might seem to be not "fundamentalist" enough for some Traditonal Catholics.
You then understand the basis of my puzzlement. I don't mean to be hard on anyone. I won't even defend that my puzzlement is justified.
But isn't that being a little hard on Traditional Catholics? To suppose that no one gets the distinction between what can be known to Reason and what it known by Revelation?
But I'm not sure the above is what is at stake when it comes to evaluating the merits of Intelligent Design.
The whole premise of I.D. is that in nature, there is a number of elements that are to complex to have evolved, and thus had to be made whole immediately. There is not much more to it.
Refuting the above, which I regard as a weak argument, does not constitute a refutation to creation. It's just an argument, in part of a very complex debate.
-
Okay. You're still puzzled and I'm still puzzled. The world will still turn. (We won't say revolve around the sun.)
It still seems hard to me to say that it's puzzling that "Trads" would favor Intelligent Design science, the presupposition apparently being that they're all such pea-brained fideists that it is hardly to be expected that they care about science at all, eeven bad science.
At this point I'll have to crack open the books and review I.D. arguments. I don't think that it's all as simple as you make it.
I also think that you know that some scientists merely poke holes in received Evolutionary dogma, or ask awkward questions, and that for that Thought Crime are subject to the Inquisition and the the auto-da-fe. So to speak.
I think that we all know that the rule in the Modern Classroom is that any fact that does not favor Atheism as regards God or Modernism as regards the Son of God is very, very Naughty Fact. For example. the Keystone cops history of Serious Modern Science's trying to come up with a Missing Link to to prove Evolution is a Naughty Fact that must be admitted only with the worst possible grace.
Another such Naughty Fact is that Jesus of Nazareth really did exist. No one would last very long at dumps like Yale or the Sorbonne if he REALLY doubted that fact. But it is still a Naughty Fact and is presented as such to students in the Modern Classroom.
But I'm still puzzled as to why anyone would pick on the David of "I.D." and his scientific inadequacies when the Goliath of Godless Evolutionary fantasy continues its irrational rampage through the halls of academe.
"A correct understanding of Evolution demonstrates that marital fidelity is unnatural and impossible."
"Men must hate and battle other men, otherwise Evolutionary reality is being defied."
That's Modern Science for you right there. That's the received wisdom in the Science Classroom.
And remember. We were not talking about the laboratory and the field. We were talking about the classroom and the alleged threat THERE of the Intelligent Design theorists. I'm saying that these latter could not possibly be worse as classroom scientists than the Godless sons of Belial who use science as a cover for preaching the above enormities to their captive audiences.
Why are Darwinist fairy tales deemed scientifically superior to Bible stories or scientific at all?
-
Sorry. I'm not accusing even Godless academe of being so sloppy as to say, "A correct understanding of Evolution demonstrates..."
Make that, "A correct understanding of Evolution leads one to believe..."
I also want to reiterate that I'm taking my stance in the midst of the Garden of Eden alongside our first parents.
It is contemptibly unscientific of Modern Science to say that that CANNOT be the way we got here and that there HAS TO BE some other explanation and then to go looking for one and to fake evidence that it has found one and to browbeat schoolchildren into believing that it has found one.
-
I take the point that so-called Intelligent Design science might seem to be not "fundamentalist" enough for some Traditonal Catholics.
You then understand the basis of my puzzlement. ....
Even if ID isn't "fundamentalist" enough, it is a step in the right direction.
-
At this point I'll have to crack open the books and review I.D. arguments. I don't think that it's all as simple as you make it.
Sure, I would expect no less for anyone who would applaud it to at the very least cover the basics of it's tenant. You will find concepts such has irreducible complexity which implies that some organism or organs functions are so complex, or so perfectly designed for their function that they could not have evolved since any altercation to it's present state (The supposed previous step in evolution) would make the organism or organ inoperable and thus, would not have survived the process of natural selection.
I.D. goes on in providing examples from Nature and defend the argument above through those examples.
The problem of I.D. as a science is that it only uses the science language to make it's case, but it does not meet the criteria's for it to be science.
Intelligent Design is not a science because it cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of it's own. * (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=25)
-
The problem of I.D. as a science is that it only uses the science language to make it's case, but it does not meet the criteria's for it to be science.
Please do not tell me you think evolution is science...
Intelligent Design is not a science because it cannot be tested by experiment...
...neither can evolution. It is "pie in the sky" that is totally at variance with reason (as well as ALL observed phenomena).
-
Believers can and do err by confusing what is known by faith with what is known by reason and introducing the disciplines of theology into the discipline of science.
Cletus, my old (and dear) friend, good to see you "up and at it" again. As for these words, I just wanted to point out something you already know - theology IS a science.
For those following this thread, it might be good to interject here that Cletus is speaking of the disciplines of the science of theology versus the disciplines of what are called the physical sciences.
God speed.
-
Intelligent Design is not a science because it cannot be tested by experiment...
...neither can evolution. It is "pie in the sky" that is totally at variance with reason (as well as ALL observed phenomena).
That is false. The implications of evolution can, and are tested for specific sets of expectations that should logically be observed in fields such has modern genetics and molecular biology. Fields that did not even exist when the theory of evolution was first written.
-
Cletus, my old (and dear) friend, good to see you "up and at it" again.
Ditto,
Cletus is great.
-
...The implications of evolution can, and are tested for specific sets of expectations that should logically be observed...
This idea is taking as proven the very thing under question (which is clever, as it is totally unprovable), looking at certain aspects after the assumed fact (distorted under the lens thereof), and postulating all kinds of unobserved and unobservable "facts" from the little that has been observed.
Evolution is not scientific, my friend. It has proven to be an embarrassment to real science and real scientists.
As for the application in very new fields, I shall refrain from accepting such "truths" until time has shown the field to be actual science, and the men to be actual scientists.
-
Gladius,
I understand that there is a filter that will prevent us to discuss. It's fine, I understand the subject to be I.D. and it's merit to be in science class.
The merits of evolution was a side track.
-
Thanks, gentlemen, for the above kind words.
Yes, theology is the queen of sciences. I usually write "Modern Science" without distinction as a way to satirize what most modern people consider science to be. I think I got that trick from Chesterton. I probably overdo all that quirky capitalizing business and this time forgetting to be idiosyncratic in that way led me into a drawing a false distinction.
I would never have jumped into a thread about Intelligent Design versus Evolution per se. This started out as a thread about a movie that apparently is a defense of I.D. Then something ambiguous about "Trads" and what one might expect their reactions and sympathies and enthusiasms to be in this area appeared.
At first I thought that what was meant might be along the lines of: "It is puzzling that Traditional Catholics should be so happy and excited about a pro-I.D. movie, since that sort of thing is associated with Protestant Fundamentalists, and Catholics in the 1950s who were far from being Modernists nonetheless lived quite comfortably with Evolution Theory, unlike those Protestant Fundamentalists."
That's why I went through my litany of standard 1950s American Catholic theological abominations. To challenge the notion, if that was in fact the notion someone had, that the many ways in which some worldly-wise Catholics sold the farm to the infidels well before Vatican II constituted a "tradition" the bucking of which by "Trads" might well be considered "puzzling."
Now it seems that something more subtle than that was intended. Something along the lines of: "It's puzzling that Traditional Catholics should be interested in Intelligent Design theory at all, since they're such hopeless Fundamentalists that one would not expect them to know anything about the study of origins but their own literal reading of Genesis."
In the past I have made fun of "thread beadles" whose ideas about keeping to the original thrust of a thread on a message board are arbitrary and sometimes self-serving. I would not, for example, be so quick to say here that "the merits of evolution was a side track." It's not as though someone started comparing and contrasting THE HONEYMOONERS with THE FLINTSTONES. Certainly, discussing the merits of Evolution with or without that mysterious "filter" is within the bounds of the topic of this thread. If that gets too complex for all but two people, so be it. Survival of the fittest and all...
But for me THE topic of this thread is now the "Trad" mind and its supposed limitations and the "Trad" relationship to Modern Science and Modern Academe. There was no question of a lofty and sophisticated "discussion" about molecular structures and that sort of thing when that comment about Trads, which turned out to be a subtle put-down, was passed.
The real meat and potatoes of Evolutionary Science as taught in the Modern Classroom are demented dogmas such as these:
Marital fidelity is an unnatural vice.
Constant warfare is part of Man's Evolutionary heritage.
The only hope for humankind is that certain male monkeys display themselves in attitudes of receptivity to ravishment when threatened and maybe in a billion or two years humans will learn to do the same, thus leading to Peace on Earth.
Evolutionists have a bad habit of waxing all pious and righteous and indignant about the sanctity of their supposedly unbiased petrie dishes and specific sets of expectations when in fact they are about as cautious as the demon-ridden swine of Gerasa in how they go about arriving at their theories and their certitude about their theories.
I suppose that given billions and billions of years I could get an Evolutionist apologist to admit that pictures in Fundamentalist tracts of Sumerians riding domesticated dinosaurs are really no more ridiculous than the above standard Evolutionist dicta.
It's easy to grumble when called on one's patronizing or dismissive attitude towards supposed Fundamentalists that yes, those who espouse Evolutionist Science and teach it in the classroom are not above having weird and unscientific flights of fancy of their own.
It's not so easy when one has been brainwashed otherwise by the World Spirit to take an honest and appalled look at the extent to which Evolution AS ACTUALLY TAUGHT IN THE CLASSROOM is a matter of demented dogma, and not of science of any kind.
-
Now it seems that something more subtle than that was intended. Something along the lines of: "It's puzzling that Traditional Catholics should be interested in Intelligent Design theory at all, since they're such hopeless Fundamentalists that one would not expect them to know anything about the study of origins but their own literal reading of Genesis."
I think it would be a fair appraisal that scientific literacy is poor in my experience in these circles. It's difficult to evaluate if it's poorer then..., your average bowling team. Either way, I see science dismissed and "bracketed" enough as a dirty word to have drawn some of the above attitude to a certain extent.
In the past I have made fun of "thread beadles" whose ideas about keeping to the original thrust of a thread on a message board are arbitrary and sometimes self-serving. I would not, for example, be so quick to say here that "the merits of evolution was a side track." It's not as though someone started comparing and contrasting THE HONEYMOONERS with THE FLINTSTONES. Certainly, discussing the merits of Evolution with or without that mysterious "filter" is within the bounds of the topic of this thread. If that gets too complex for all but two people, so be it. Survival of the fittest and all...
The above behavior is not so much in relation to my desire to keep the thread on topic, but rather to be less antagonistic then I have been in the past. I can defend my point on evolution with relative ease but I have chosen not to. Should there be an appetite for the discussion, I am not opposed to it.
But for me THE topic of this thread is now the "Trad" mind and its supposed limitations and the "Trad" relationship to Modern Science and Modern Academe. There was no question of a lofty and sophisticated "discussion" about molecular structures and that sort of thing when that comment about Trads, which turned out to be a subtle put-down, was passed.
How do you propose to operate then. Not to single out, but would you consider Gladius response to be rather typical or "Trad" relationship to Modern Science and Modern Academe.
-
This idea is taking as proven the very thing under question (which is clever, as it is totally unprovable), looking at certain aspects after the assumed fact (distorted under the lens thereof), and postulating all kinds of unobserved and unobservable "facts" from the little that has been observed.
Seems I may have deflected... Gladius, so if you wish to discuss the above, you will need to be more specific. Your sentence, though pleasing to read offers no specific for me to respond to.
As for the application in very new fields, I shall refrain from accepting such "truths" until time has shown the field to be actual science, and the men to be actual scientists.
Maybe it would help if we talked specifics rather then concepts ?
-
I'm proposing that it be admitted on all sides that it's a crock to invoke the sancity of the Classroom against the Intelligent Design people as though the Classroom has not been the stomping grounds of Evolutionist fanatics for the past eighty years or so.
I realize that this might strike some as a "tu quoque"type of fallacy: Making that point is just part of my master plan.
I think that it's understood that Traditional Catholics have no problem with Pasteur and pasteurization and Edison and the light bulb and so forth. So I don't think that it's fair to say that "science" is a dirty word in Traditional Catholic circles. We're all using various forms of shorthand here. In the context of the controversial threads that appear on Traditional Catholic message boards "science" is a dirty word insofar as it means "the kind of false science that is taught in secular humanist classrooms, about which we are currently squawking."
Specifics.
Marital fidelity is unnatural.
Because of the monkeys we may hope that our 1000x great grandchildren will display themselves in attitudes of receptivity to ravishment and thus effect World Peace.
No response?
-
"Trad" relationship to Modern Science and Modern Academe.[/i]
No.
-
I've seen too many Traditonal Catholics with that 1950s Me Too attitude towards Modern Science and Modern Academe to say that anyone more judicious and better inspired is "typical."
One of the saddest experiences of my life was to behold one poor fellow who tried to reconcile Catholic orthodoxy with Modern Scientism go nuts and lose his Faith before our very eyes on a message board. He ended up saying that Thomas Aquinas and the 1870 Vatican Council and the principle of non-contradiction had been proven by Modern Science to be not all they were cracked up to be by all those stupid Traditional Catholics. It got to the point that he couldn't even discuss the Knowledge in the Soul of Christ without bringing in the findings of Modern Science on brainwaves and nerve ending development and such. And these as proof that Christ could not have had the Beatific Vision until He was more highly evolved as an organism than a Babe in the womb.
But for a while there he was what I would call a "typical" Traditional Me Tooer. I hope that no one would take any comfort from this.
-
I'm proposing that it be admitted on all sides that it's a crock to invoke the sancity of the Classroom against the Intelligent Design people as though the Classroom has not been the stomping grounds of Evolutionist fanatics for the past eighty years or so.
I have no problem with I.D. being thought at any given length then a school board may choose, but not in a science class.
I think that it's understood that Traditional Catholics have no problem with Pasteur and pasteurization and Edison and the light bulb and so forth. So I don't think that it's fair to say that "science" is a dirty word in Traditional Catholic circles. We're all using various forms of shorthand here. In the context of the controversial threads that appear on Traditional Catholic message boards "science" is a dirty word insofar as it means "the kind of false science that is taught in secular humanist classrooms, about which we are currently squawking."
Funny you would choose voluntarily innocent matters but still manage to intersect with a subject that I have seen controversial. No where other then in "Trad" circles have I seen people bent on drinking raw milk rather then pasteurized. I find that amusing. That is not to say that the raw milk is a Trad debate, but I just never seen it elsewhere.
Light bulbs do seem ok though :laugh1:
Marital fidelity is unnatural.
Interesting and thoughtful to interject this.
It's of course an incomplete statement without it's sister statement that we, as humans have the unique capacity of overcoming our biological urges. It don't make the first statement in itself patently false.
Because of the monkeys we may hope that our 1000x great grandchildren will display themselves in attitudes of receptivity to ravishment and thus effect World Peace.
You see this being thought in which class ?
-
I myself have never heard a Traditional Catholic lament pasteurization as an evil of modern science: I've heard only secular humanist Marxist granolaheads do that as they were chewing their mung bean and tofu salad.
As to marital fidelity, I refer to my original epitomizing of the Evolutionary dogma. The dogma is that the bugaboo of marital fidelity is contrary to Nature and an affront to the science of Evolution, just as all notions of God and right and wrong and conscience and conquering biological urges are an affront to The Modern Worldview.
I do not accept that true Evolutionists and the irreligious fanatics who control the Modern Science Classroom would allow for your moralistic afterthought . They DON'T allow for it. No more than they allow for the existence of God and the soul or the historicity of Noah's Ark.
The first statement IS false because it posits as some sort of mandate of Nature what is an effect of the Fall from Grace. It is false and juvenile and typical of Evolutionist ravings.
Do you think it acceptable to say in Science Class, "The reason why men are never faithful to their wives is that the stricture of marital fidelity runs counter to millions of years of our Evolutionary impulses"?
Do you deny that such claims are the norm in Science Classes and Science textbooks?
Do you think that there is serious science behind such claims?
Do you think that they belong in the Science Class?
Do you deny that they are a significant part of what is presented to schoolchildren as Modern Science?
Would you or would you not ban from the Science Class your own moralistic afterthought about the suppression of biological urges?
That bit of cretinous hokum about monkey-based hope for world peace comes courtesy of Carl Sagan.
I've read a bit about this upcoming film EXPELLED. I see that a lot of the controversy is not about Intelligent Design theory and Evolution per se but about the claim that the Godless Evolutionists who control the classrooms are fanatical, dishonest, and vicious ideologues who are willing to destroy a man's career if he so much as blinks in a way that could be taken as giving aid and comfort to believers in the God of Israel.
Demonstrating how all that is putting it all too mildly about the Godless Evolutionists who control the classrooms would be like shooting trout in a bucket.
You say that you could defend this and argue that but you won't.
I say that I can demonstrate this and justify that and that little by little, should this thread go on, I will.
-
Do you think it acceptable to say in Science Class, "The reason why men are never faithful to their wives is that the stricture of marital fidelity runs counter to millions of years of our Evolutionary impulses"?
As I said, I think it's an entirely incomplete statement.
Do you deny that such claims are the norm in Science Classes and Science textbooks?
My denial or not cannot act as a validation... if you really want to make that point, you should provide the evidence that such subject is part of a science class curriculum
Do you think that there is serious science behind such claims?
I don't regard the subject of Marital fidelity as a scientific enigma. But that sɛҳuąƖ attraction can be analyzed down at the biological level is self-evident.
Do you think that they belong in the Science Class?
No, not the way you present it.
Do you deny that they are a significant part of what is presented to schoolchildren as Modern Science?
I don't have an informed opinion on the matter
Would you or would you not ban from the Science Class your own moralistic afterthought about the suppression of biological urges?
I don't see the whole subject as a serious scientific matter. I follow your forceful lead that it's in fact part of science courses. As I said, and I repeat, I think the statement is incomplete to the point to being meaningless without the notion that we are not slave to our biological urges.
You say that you could defend this and argue that but you won't.
What I said I can defend and won't unless truly necessary is the merits of evolution. I recommend you continue asking direct questions to the very specific items you want me to react. I can't see a question I will not give my honest opinion. I just don't want to badger the forum with content that is not welcome. The discussion can go on as long the forum members can keep it interesting and civil.
-
Carl Sagan's ghost didn't show up here with subtle put-downs of "Trads" vis-a-vis Modern Science.
You did.
-
I had to look him up, ignorant of who he was. Sorry you feel that way.
If "Trads" were more alert in fraternally correcting the errors of their peers as they relate to modern science, the impression I have, and that unfortunately transpired would not have existed.
-
"And if I ask you a question you will not answer me..."
The question, for example, was not whether or not it is self-evident that sɛҳuąƖ attraction can be analyzed down at the biological level. The question was what we are to make of Evolutionists who preach to schoolchildren that the "bugaboo" of marital fidelity is unnatural because it flies in the face of millions and millions of years of Evolutionary conditioning.
Everyone knows that the latter is what the irreligious fanatics who run the classroooms try to hammer into the brains of their young victims. If it's not marital fidelity that they mock in the name of Evolution it's filial piety. If it's not filial piety it's maternal love and devotion. And so on and so on.
I'll concede that Sagan was being colorfully idiosyncratic about those supposedly inspirational uncouth monkeys.
I recall that Sagan's palavering about the monkeys became notorious. I cited it to demonstrate how supposedly intelligent Evolutionists are given to saying the most degradingly idiotic things imaginable.
I cited it in order to chide those who are so piously offended by the threat of the introduction of I.D. theory.
It is just being hypocritical to make a fuss over the threat of I.D. intrusion into The Classroom ("O, the precious minds of our young! O, that they should be sullied by what is not True! O, that the Lord of Hosts should dare to show His Face where He has no place!") when scientists such as Sagan are already firmly established there babbling madhouse obscenities which have nothing to do with science.
"... But not in the science class..."
How about in the atheist propaganda class? WHY not in the atheist propaganda class? But there are none such in our schools? There are only science classes? Well, I provided yuks galore with my reference to Trads and pasteurization and here the favor has been returned.
Now, about what evidence I have to back up my claims that my synthetic, off-the-cuff accounting of Evolutionist dogma as taught in the sacred Modern Classroom that must not be defiled by I.D. theory is valid.
There is none. Not yet. I don't think that it's necessary in this forum.
Why should I be the only one around here who provides evidence that what I presuppose is valid? "Trads say this, Trads are like that." Yeah, well Evolutionist fanatics say this and are like that.
I claim Common Knowledge as my evidence. That is not something you have to provide.
I think that everyone reading this board who has ever been to any but a Traditional Catholic or an Evangelical school and has not lived in a cave has heard variations on my synthetic representations of Evolutionist dogma a thousand times in his lifetime.
-
"And if I ask you a question you will not answer me..."
The question, for example, was not whether or not it is self-evident that sɛҳuąƖ attraction can be analyzed down at the biological level. The question was what we are to make of Evolutionists who preach to schoolchildren that the "bugaboo" of marital fidelity is unnatural because it flies in the face of millions and millions of years of Evolutionary conditioning.
As you've said, this is a Tu Quoque approach and I will let your master plan unfold as you advertised. If indeed such information is implanted in science curriculum, in the manner you outline, I oppose it to. What do you want from me exactly ?
"... But not in the science class..."
Now, about what evidence I have to back up my claims that my synthetic, off-the-cuff accounting of Evolutionist dogma as taught in the sacred Modern Classroom that must not be defiled by I.D. theory is valid.
There is none. Not yet. I don't think that it's necessary in this forum.
Why should I be the only one around here who provides evidence that what I presuppose is valid? "Trads say this, Trads are like that." Yeah, well Evolutionist fanatics say this and are like that.
You can ask me for evidence anytime for what I claim and I will provide, each time when possible, even though it's not necessary. But that is not the point. The reason why I proposed that you should provide evidence is that by asking if I deny xyz, by answering no, I'm providing credence to a claim for which I have reservations.
I claim Common Knowledge as my evidence. That is not something you have to provide.
I think that everyone reading this board who has ever been to any but a Traditional Catholic or an Evangelical school and has not lived in a cave has heard variations on my synthetic representations of Evolutionist dogma a thousand times in his lifetime.
Hearing the above a thousand time in a lifetime is not evidence that it's part of a science curriculum in schools. If it's not part of curriculum's, it weakens your tu quoque approach which I am hopeful, will open up into a new avenue.
Of course, asking me if me to reciprocate with evidence that there are efforts to incorporate I.D. in science class futile, since there has been many court cases on the subject, including Dover (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/decision.htm), which became internationally famous.
-
I never said that I was taking a "tu quoque" approach.
I said that I realized that it might strike some that I was doing so.
I have gotten from you exactly what I wanted to get from you. Your statement that you'd oppose what you now say you'd oppose.
And now it is up to me to demonstrate how such "information" is indeed "implanted in science curriculum."
But I don't think that I'll be in such a rush to do that.
*
I think that by speaking of going to college (and not living in a cave) I already suggested that a good per centage of those thousand occasions of hearing the demented ravings of Godless Evolutionist fanatics had to do with an academic curriculum.
I was not saying, "The fact that all of you out there in cathinfoland know that you have heard these things a thousand times supports my claim that they are what's taught in our classrooms."
I specifically mentioned attendance at college.
I did not mention high school or grammar school only because in my earlier years I was spared exposure to the more vile aspects of that standardized Secular Humanistic brainwashing that we humorously call Education and hilariously see as threatened by hordes of I.D. Huns.
I am personally familiar with the sleaziness of the Godless Evolutionist mindset only from college. I know that the spawn of Belial who control our nations' classrooms, to no small extent because "Modern Science" is what it is, start corrupting children who are barely out of the toddler stage.
*
Maybe the reason why the scientifically inadequate among faithful Catholics are not more often the object of fraternal correction is that those who are both scientific whiz kids and signally orthodox think it beneath them to act as though they thought that were it not for those scientifically inadequate fellow Catholics that nice Mr. Atheist Man at Princeton who, in the best tradition of Modern Science, preaches that blind babies should be slaughtered, would in short order be singing praises unto Him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb.
-
I never said that I was taking a "tu quoque" approach.
I said that I realized that it might strike some that I was doing so.
I have gotten from you exactly what I wanted to get from you. Your statement that you'd oppose what you now say you'd oppose.
And now it is up to me to demonstrate how such "information" is indeed "implanted in science curriculum."
But I don't think that I'll be in such a rush to do that.
I purposefully used the word approach since I'm not crying foul. You are not committing any fallacy since you are only pointing out that I should feel so equal outrage for other topics as well. You are not arguing that I should not feel the way I do about I.D. therefore you are right, it only seems like you are committing the fallacy, but you are not. I have understood that and I'm glad to clarify it.
Has you said, if it's indeed the case, I would be opposed to it. I don't feel any problem at all about where you brought me as long you understand that I will still be equally opposed to I.D. in science classes no matter what since it unrelated.
Maybe the reason why the scientifically inadequate among faithful Catholics are not more often the object of fraternal correction is that those who are both scientific whiz kids and signally orthodox think it beneath them to act as though they thought that were it not for those scientifically inadequate fellow Catholics that nice Mr. Atheist Man at Princeton who, in the best tradition of Modern Science, preaches that blind babies should be slaughtered, would in short order be singing praises unto Him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb.
I do pose a caveat to my impression above. I don't know that it's especially a problem among "Trads". The impression gotten that science literacy is low does not mean that it's lower then average among Internet posters across the spectrum of Interest. Certainly there are forums with greater litteracy but that may be because simply the target audience for these boards are somewhat related or cross related with science. This board is not in any way. Maybe "Trads" are just average in that regards and I am quite open to that possibility.
-
I'm proposing that it be admitted on all sides that it's a crock to invoke the sancity of the Classroom against the Intelligent Design people as though the Classroom has not been the stomping grounds of Evolutionist fanatics for the past eighty years or so.
I guess it boils down to this.
No it's not a crock since the topics are unrelated. Two wrongs does not make a right.
But I have already given my conditional tacit nod that I would be opposed to behaviors such as those you outlined. The extent of my opposition would only be known after the actual facts of the matter are exposed.
And with that, I wish you a good day.
-
Oh, and also.
I can I suppose give my own impression or experience with the marital fidelity argument.
Of course I hear it also, but rarely formerly. I've seen it often used a zinger to get a chuckle out of men, and a rise out of women. I could even see a teacher say some things just to get a little rise and wake-up poke or, as a pitiful way to increase his (I'm assuming a men would say this) popularity.
I do have a hard time seeing this presented as a legitimate chapter of study in a curriculum though.
We all have different life experiences, and the above is mine.
-
I meant formally, not formerly.
-
As for "science literacy", let's not forget the timely reminder that was given above as to theology's being a science too.
-
Oh, and also.
I can I suppose give my own impression or experience with the marital fidelity argument.
Of course I hear it also, but rarely formerly. I've seen it often used a zinger to get a chuckle out of men, and a rise out of women. I could even see a teacher say some things just to get a little rise and wake-up poke or, as a pitiful way to increase his (I'm assuming a men would say this) popularity.
I do have a hard time seeing this presented as a legitimate chapter of study in a curriculum though.
We all have different life experiences, and the above is mine.
The presence in supposedly "legitimate" institututions of learning of such a "curriculum" as "Queer Theory" indicates that it is not unlikely that the vile and moronic maunderings of pea-brained skanks should be part of the day's lessons in other areas too.
-
As regards my attitude toward modern science and modern academia, it is thus: The corruption of the best is the worst. The same may be applied to modern law, politics, religion, etc. These are ALL among the most noble fields, capable of procuring greater light, order, peace, etc., for men - i.e., they are ordered to the common good. At this hour, NONE are working to achieve the common good, but are employed as tools for the (common but not so good) enslavement of men. I attended very good modern schools for many years (doing rather well according to their way of looking at it), so I know quite well, from experience, that these tools meant for good are, in fact, used for ill. One of the ways is by the presentation of completely unsubstantiated nonsense (sometimes filthy) as truth (or quasi-truth, since true moderns do not believe in truth any more).
Do I cast off the noble offices in their entirety, just because they are misused by the majority of men who hold them? No. However, I do have a general contempt for politicians, lawyers, so-called academics, etc., as they have, as a group, earned this contempt ten times over. I still regard the offices most highly, as they are necessary for the attainment of the common good, and I occasionally get the pleasant surprise of seeing someone use his office correctly. Most do not, although many of these are in no way malicious (just brainwashed).
Van, you know very little about my overall life experience or present attitudes toward anything. I have posted much on the net, providing some idea of them, but no man is merely what one sees on internet posts, at work, etc. Each of us is SO MUCH deeper than these isolated aspects. God speed.
-
As an aside, the whole (unspoken) idea that there is "science" as well as "modern science" is fallacious. Either it is science or it is not science (keeping in mind here that we are speaking almost exclusively of what are known as the natural or the physical sciences). Much of what passes for science in the modern world (or at least the part that is most commonly shoved down our throats, appearing in texts from all sorts of different disciplines) is mere charlatanism.
The modern world has gone mad with a certain ridiculous (unproven and unprovable) theory, twisting real evidence (and manufacturing false "evidence") in order to support the absurdly tall and incomprehensibly weak City of Man which is already crashing to the ground (and will soon do so with a vengeance).
-
Gladius,
I would not presume to know you and you are welcome to correct me anytime I err on any subjects, including my appraisal of certain person including your own.
When it's on your account, and your personality I'll take your word for it each and every time.
But when you write...
Much of what passes for science in the modern world (or at least the part that is most commonly shoved down our throats, appearing in texts from all sorts of different disciplines) is mere charlatanism.
... without any specifics, without any precision of what can be charlatanism, without any specifics credential to provide credence to your claim, it's very difficult to take you seriously.
You're basically asking for a blank check for whatever lies in your mind when you write the above.
I regard you as pretty solid in many areas Gladius because you have proved your salt. But on this particular matter, your cynicism trumps substance but I would welcome to be surprised.
As you say, God Speed.
-
Credentials?
Does this mean that even if someone DOES give specifics as to the mentioned charlatanism he cannot be taken seriously unless he can produce.... What exactly? A Masters Degree in Queer Theory from Yale? An article published in THE HARVARD REVIEW on subtextual Feminist Outrage in the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears?
What credentials? What exactly? Specifically?
(I'm assuming that what was meant was "specific credentials")
I need no "specific credentials" to say, for example, that at the time of the PASSION OF THE CHRIST brouhaha I caught dozens and dozens of so-called scholars with "specific credentials" galore in oodles and oodles of displays of crass ignorance and ideological flim-flam.
"Gibson says that his portrait of Pilate is based on historical fact, but for him historical fact means the Gospels, which are not historical and not meant to be historical, and which in any case contradict what ancient historians have to say about Pilate."
All you have to be is intelliegent and well-read to know that the above is absolute twaddle and that a good way to dismiss it is to say that there is a single letter that ought not to be there, and that the introduction of this letter shows either bad faith or such ignorance as to make the author's "specific credentials" fraudulent.
But if you're anywhere near the academic milieu you have to be very brave to point out what that letter is and to say why it ought not to be there.
Why brave? Modern Academe is basically the stomping grounds of ignorant and uncivilized infidel fanatics.
It is basically a brothel of the mind and soul.
"Oooh, Ethel! He's SO cynical! Not sweet and pure-minded like those Feminist professors with specific credentials who give kids failing grades and will labor to ruin their entire lives unless they parrot back to them in term papers that marriage is institutionalized rape!"
-
Credentials?
Does this mean that even if someone DOES give specifics as to the mentioned charlatanism he cannot be taken seriously unless he can produce.... What exactly? A Masters Degree in Queer Theory from Yale? An article published in THE HARVARD REVIEW on subtextual Feminist Outrage in the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears?
What credentials? What exactly? Specifically?
(I'm assuming that what was meant was "specific credentials")
Since I doubt very much that Gladius uncovered on his own that most fields of science are nothing but deception, I would expect some kind of something to support his claim. you think not ?
Credentials are tricky and not a guarantee by any means. At the embryonic stage of this topic, I'd settle on anything that would clarify what was intended in the first place.
But an expert, when speaking within the realm of his expertise AND when that field is not particularly contested by other experts has great value. I would call that good credentials.
-
The letter that does not belong in the criticism of Mel Gibson's treatment of Pilate above is S.
There is precisely ONE ancient historian who does more than mention Pilate's name as the Roman governor under whom Jesus was executed.
The name of that ONE historian is Flavius Josephus.
What he has to say about Pilate dovetails perfectly with what the Gospels relate about Pilate.
And it shows the typical irreligious fanaticism of the typical Modern Academic to presuppose that the FOUR Evangelists are wrong and the ONE ancient historian (who is being misrepresented anyway) is right.
Philo the Jew was not a historian.
Only a fool would say that the Gospels are false because they show Pilate as being pliable, whereas Philo (and who should know better than Philo from his plum vantage point in Egypt?) snapped in a letter to Caligula that he was stubborn.
The Gospels show that in some ways Pilate was stubborn too.
Any Modern Scholar who is to the slightest degree honest when it comes to anything having to do with Christianity and Bible-based beliefs is going to be not only contested but crucified by the generality of so-called experts in his field.
To be in agreement with the secular humanist party line and to pass unscathed through the halls of their dark underworld I would call the worst of all credentials.
I think that it's important to point out that the title of the film that this thread is about is EXPELLED. So I think that general attacks on Modern Academe are on-topic. Judging from what I've read about EXPELLED there is in it a general complaint that the Godless in the academy persecute believers. On the other hand I could see how there would be no end to this discussion if we all say all that we think about the evils of "learning falsely so called" on topics other than Intelligent Design and Evolution. Sp my eyes widened when I saw the word "embryonic."
If we split the difference, so to speak, and stick to the shameless mendacity of Godless fanatics in the natural science fields I could get into the Shroud of Turin. Then the fur would REALLY fly. But that might require a thread of its own.
PS: Vandaler, your first sentence makes no sense to me. I don't see how the initial clause relates to the main statement and to the question.
-
The letter that does not belong in the criticism of Mel Gibson's treatment of Pilate above is S.
There is precisely ONE ancient historian who does more than mention Pilate's name as the Roman governor under whom Jesus was executed.
The name of that ONE historian is Flavius Josephus.
What he has to say about Pilate dovetails perfectly with what the Gospels relate about Pilate.
And it shows the typical irreligious fanaticism of the typical Modern Academic to presuppose that the FOUR Evangelists are wrong and the ONE ancient historian (who is being misrepresented anyway) is right.
Philo the Jew was not a historian.
Only a fool would say that the Gospels are false because they show Pilate as being pliable, whereas Philo (and who should know better than Philo from his plum vantage point in Egypt?) snapped in a letter to Caligula that he was stubborn.
The Gospels show that in some ways Pilate was stubborn too.
Any Modern Scholar who is to the slightest degree honest when it comes to anything having to do with Christianity and Bible-based beliefs is going to be not only contested but crucified by the generality of so-called experts in his field.
Interesting all that. Nice post.
I could see how there would be no end to this discussion if we all say all that we think about the evils of "learning falsely so called" on topics other than Intelligent Design and Evolution. Sp my eyes widened when I saw the word "embryonic."
I was referring to the nascent discussion I was having with Gladius on the subject of science being voluntarily misleading. Not our exchange.
PS: Vandaler, your first sentence makes no sense to me. I don't see how the initial clause relates to the main statement and to the question.
I appreciate that you hold me to high standards. I do get a bit winded by your prose and in the process, lost some focus. I trust you understand in the end what is regarded as good credential if credential are to be invoked.
-
While I'm locked in by your challenge that I would not discuss the matter with you, you seem to have make a clear break to the true nature of the Movie, which is probably a better preparation to it.
It's not however a subject on which I have much to say.
Is there other stones you'd like to turn on the matter that I set out to defend initially ?
-
I don't understand your question.
I'm sure that it's all my fault if it's unclear, what with all those exhausting excursions to Egypt and such. (But thank you for the compliment.)
I don't know where "defense" comes into play in your initial post if that is what you're referring to. Speaking of Egypt, that initial post was just a comment on the interest of Trads in the movie EXPELLED whose most noteworthy characteristic was a sphinx-like ambiguity.
Why was it so puzzling that Trads should take under their wing or to their hearts the movie EXPELLED based on the pre-release buzz about it?
Because one would expect Trads to fall more in line with 1950s Catholic Me Tooism and as good little Theistic Evolutionist soldiers piously pooh-pooh anything that might make Catholics look benighted in the eyes of the Modern World?
Because Trads are such a bunch of Fundamentalist dummies that one does not expect them to know or care anything about any kind of natural science theory, good or bad?
In any case, I myself am not puzzled but mildly disturbed about some aspects of any uncritical Traditional Catholic embrace of ID theory or science or whatever we want to call it. (And the careful reader will note that a certain appropriate diffidence was expressed early on in this discussion: "... what truth there might be in it..." or something along those lines.)
I have seen Bible Thumper IDers make blunders that no intelligent and orthodox and properly educated Catholic would make when it comes to keeping up the distinctions between reason and faith and what is demonstrable by the one and known only by the other...
-
Why was it so puzzling that Trads should take under their wing or to their hearts the movie EXPELLED based on the pre-release buzz about it?
I thought the movie was a sounding board for I.D.
In any case, I myself am not puzzled but mildly disturbed about some aspects of any uncritical Traditional Catholic embrace of ID theory or science or whatever we want to call it.
That's about it.
I came in to the discussion with the impression that I would need to defend my position that I.D. is neither something a men of science can be satisfied, nor a serious religious person who believe in God's intervention in creation.
I obviously, who espouses evolution and am a Catholic, obviously believe that there is God's intervention somewhere in the process. This does not mean in any way that the cleverly named Intelligent Design argument holds any water.
I did not need to defend my point, but rather followed you, Cletus in your interesting line of reasoning.
In the process, I was whipped by your comment that I would not follow through... I read that you meant that somehow, I would choke along the way in discussing any matter. I don't intend to, however, my point of view is hardly challenged. So. my question is.. Can I relax now ? Or do you have something in store for me.
-
Sure.
Life is short.
Relax.
Go on a pilgrimage to the Galapagos Islands.
When you get back you can explain how Evolutionists allow for the fact that one man and one woman who at one time lived in bliss beyond our ken somewhere in or near Iraq produced the human race.
-
Go on a pilgrimage to the Galapagos Islands.
/quote]
:laugh1:
-
The fact that the film seemed to stick to "intelligent design" as opposed to outright creationism (what's the difference?!) was kind of disappointing... but then let's face it, it's still a very good step in the right direction.
When Chesterton wrote some of his articles, it seems (unless I'm mistaken) that he wrote them from a totally objective point of view. He used things like the French Revolution to make points, when most of us simply would not have. But Chesterton, perhaps... and I say perhaps because I don't know his motives for certain... I think knew that you can preach to the choir or you can be a sheep in wolves' clothing. ANd in the modern, atheistic world, that is pretty much the line one has to tow in order to get any ounce of truth out there.
As long as "intelligent design" doesn't conflict with creationism, then it is a very good step in the right direction. However, as long as it indeed does not conflict with creationism, then it is an effective means in any case for exposing the lies and defending or guiding one to the complete truth.
If one suggests half of the truth, and insists that this one half is in itself true, it is no damage, I think, to the whole picture. It simply is one part of it. It is only when one insists that something false is true that it becomes wrong. If this film insists upon or exposes the truth that we were designed by a higher intelligence, it still tells the truth. Just not all of it.
Granted, the fact that it doesn't tell all of it is not really a good thing. But getting countless people to even consider any part of the truth IS a good thing.
-
This is the year of Our Lord 2008.
There is nothing "obvious" about what nominal Catholics can be expected to believe.
One of the most influential Catholic Religious Thinkers of the Twentieth Century, Teilhard de Chardin, obviously did not even believe in God the Father Almighty or in Jesus Christ, His Son, Our Lord.
As to being satisfied, we ought not to be satisfied with the absurdities that Men of [Natural] Science utter on the subject of Evolution. Those are the absurdities that we should be worried about. All this ID hysteria is a lot of Chicken Little play-acting.
And we ought not to be satisfied that God is excluded from the Modern Classroom by Godless Men of Science.
The most important thing to remember is that the really important thing in life is to know Christ Jesus and to believe the True Roman Faith and comply with Grace so as to gain salvation.
Modern Academe is basically a means of Godless brainwashing and ritualized corruption of minds. I am automatically sympathetic to anything coming from the side of believers that destabilizes the Beastly soul-murderers who run Our Schools.
If I wince because a well-meaning Bible Thumper introduces a quote from the Epistle to the Galatians into a discussion of molecular biology directed at "Men of Science", I have not conceded anything to the latter miscreants.
Learned Jesuits and Dominicans did not make such mistakes when they were fighting Evolutionism seventy, eighty years ago and properly trained Catholics don't make them now.
What properly trained Catholics and maybe some less of the hopelessly fideistic Bible Thumpers could work out is a system of objection to the most egregiously anti-God and fantastical aspects of Evolutionary theory as it is actually taught to schoolchildren.
*
EXPELLED....
Can't argue with facts, folks. That about sums things up. Not just I.D. theory. God is EXPELLED too. Reason is EXPELLED. Decency is EXPELLED. Truth is EXPELLED. Honesty is EXPELLED.
So what can we really do about the injustice of it all?
What, realistically speaking, is the little bit of cyanide that we can sprinkle on Teacher's apple, Teacher being the Prince of Darkness and the Father of Lies?
A purely negative approach to their theory as opposed to the offering of a alternative might be harder for the Evolutionist fanatics to fight. Just keep saying, "But what about?... No, because you just said...Uh-uh... Nope... Sorry, but no way... Oh, really? I don't think so... Apparently you forgot about... You don't want the Bible in the Science Classroom, wiseguy? Then stop MOCKING the Bible in the Science Classroom or I'll write about your blasphemies in the paper of this small mostly Baptist community and have your job on a stick..."
It's important to take a firm and unyielding hand with these people and to put the fear of God in them. That's what struck me as I read the court docuмent linked above. I have followed this method in my time and had good results. Your manner should be cool and dry.
Of course, children shouldn't be exposed to them in the first place. I think that that's an important point to make, since we're discussing a movie called EXPELLED. On the other hand, concerned citizens certainly should care about what goes on in the dens of iniquity called schools and do what they can...
I'd like to post a few citations from learned Catholic priests writing about Evolution in the 1920s and 1930s. I would like to see younger Catholics who perhaps in an understandable straw-clutching mindset have become dangerously familiar with the Bible Thumper world become more and more familiar with the treasures of wisdom produced by REAL Christian faith and a truly perfect society.
-
Since I doubt very much that Gladius uncovered on his own that most fields of science are nothing but deception, I would expect some kind of something to support his claim.
As I never claimed this, such proof shall never be put forward. Most of them men who work in these fields, unwittingly or consciously, work to deceive (often by merely repeating some long-exposed lie that still makes the rounds). The simple fact is that one is either of the truth or he is not. Most moderns, scientists and others, are not of the truth. Look around you if you want mountains of proof. As for specifics relating to physical science, look at Peking Man, Ernst Haeckel, radiocarbon dating, etc. The list of items that can be discussed is practically endless. Modern men, including most scientists, are not of the truth. "He that is not with Me is against Me."
-
As for a modern clerical scholar who put forth some unorthodox ideas on these matters, an old professor from my alma mater by the name of Fr. Zahm comes to mind.
-
As for specifics relating to physical science, look at Peking Man, Ernst Haeckel, radiocarbon dating, etc. The list of items that can be discussed is practically endless. Modern men, including most scientists, are not of the truth. "He that is not with Me is against Me."
You would need to provide your grief about carbon dating and the Peking man, and in themselves, what light they bring to the discussion.
But Ernst Haeckel, are you serious ? If there is anything, Ernst Haeckel is a testament to the self correcting nature of the scientific method and peer review process. Why would you bring him up since his controversial ideas only have historical value ?
-
I shall explain myself in greater detail when I have the time - which I do not at present. God speed, my friend.
-
It would seem that an example of a hoax perpetrated by Modern Men of Science desperate to shore up one of their pet theories sheds SOME light on a discussion in which it has been claimed that Modern Men of Science are charlatans.
It's easy to use reverential phrases such as "peer review process." Reality tells a very different story about how Godless Scientists, caught in hoaxes and absurdities and lies, have to be dragged kicking and screaming to admissions that could give aid and comfort to the God-people whom they, above all else, including Science, want to scandalize and destroy.
Modern Men of Science are and have always been mindless slaves to the whims of the Revolutionary mob.
-
But the tale of PILTDOWN Man is the ultimate example of one of Modern Science's hoaxes. And that tale even has a whodunit Murder Mystery attached! With Peking Man it's more a question of junky science than of hoax.
The Modern Man of Science is not only a Godless liar. He is also an insufferably self-righteous prig. He waves bones in the air as though they were Caesar's bloody shroud and dogmatizes about them at the expense of the the Lord God of Israel and His faithful ones. Then, when he has to admit that he was wrong on this point or that, he perversely turns the fact of his own insolent and fanatical dogmatism against his critics and says, "If you knew anything about Science, you would know that this is how Science is done: you boldly make hypotheses on the basis of available data and wait for it all to pan out as further advances in knowledge are made."
-
It's easy to use reverential phrases such as "peer review process." Reality tells a very different story about how Godless Scientists, caught in hoaxes and absurdities and lies, have to be dragged kicking and screaming to admissions that could give aid and comfort to the God-people whom they, above all else, including Science, want to scandalize and destroy.
Bolster aside, the above IS the peer review process.
It's little matter how easy or reverential it is to say it. The scientific method is greatly served by the peer review process..
-
Yes, that certainly IS the peer review process as it relates to the questions with which we are dealing.
And that's why it's not a question of the Modern Man of Science's ever learning anything about true Science and about himself and about the hypocrisy of his contempt for "uncritical and scientifically illiterate God-people" but rather about his plotting his next hoax, his next absurdity, or his next lie, even as he is dragged kicking and screaming to an admission about his latest hoax, absurdity, or lie.
-
I meant to say of course that it was the result of a peer review process, which forces one to publish his work for consideration and replication by others for verification. I really regret the edit function
You seem aligned with Gladius, Cletus. perhaps you can help him get into specifics rather then staying in the relatively comfortable and malleable world of concepts.
-
Gladius already mentioned the specifics of Peking Man and Haeckel and indicated that when he has the time he will pursue these matters further in these pages.
We must be patient.
I don't know about being aligned with anyone else. Maybe the alignment in this case with someone else is a function of being commonly aligned with proper notions of Catholic orthodoxy.
I'm a Specifics Man myself. That's why, among a few others, I gave the specific of the corruption of the papyrology and archaeology worlds by the Godless fanaticism of the Modern Man of Science against Sacred Scripture. This was a personal disaster for me. What I really wanted to be when I was young was a papyrologist. Now look at me. I suppose that I could have been braver and seen how long I could have lasted before I was brought up on charges in the Court of Modern Science of having demurred too heatedly when a Peer hypothesized that all apparently ancient Biblical texts were forged at the Moody Bible Institute in 1892...
I don't see how the world of "concepts" is any more malleable than the world of "specifics." Look how Godless and dirty-minded Evolutionists are always teaching schoolchildren that Evolutionary Science has established that women who have married older men are biologically programmed to commit adultery with younger men and that's all there is to it.
-
I don't see how the world of "concepts" is any more malleable than the world of "specifics." Look how Godless and dirty-minded Evolutionists are always teaching schoolchildren that Evolutionary Science has established that women who have married older men are biologically programmed to commit adultery with younger men and that's all there is to it.
I'm not sure what I mean exactly myself. I'm a bit sloppy tonight and should refrain from posting.
I suppose by "specifics" I mean something I can look up, and say, yes your right, or no because... The above you wrote exist, no doubt, but it's a minding right ? It's individuals right ? The above is not a result of the scientific method, but rather of a certain humanism or something of sort.
Where you speak of educators and propagation of common basic science, I have cutting edge science in mind and the mechanism that pushes it forward.
Will be all for today.
-
Why not consider BOTH specifics and concepts? That's a big problem in our time where people either hinge on more to the abstract universal ideas or get too involved in particulars. I suppose it is the bouncing back and forth between reason and the senses, or between Plato and Aristotle. Many have gotten so involved in details that they neglect what is fixed and universal.
So it follows then that evolution as a philosophy and an explanation like macroevolution would make sense for many if they already have assumptions not based on fixed and universal principles.
-
But the tale of PILTDOWN Man is the ultimate example of one of Modern Science's hoaxes....
I actually had Piltdown, Peking, and Java "Men" in my original post, but decided to go with just one at first. I had Piltdown in mind when I was writing, not Peking. Sorry.
What is more pathetic about that one is the role of a priest - the notorious Teilhard de Chardin. What a sham it all was.
-
Why not consider BOTH specifics and concepts?
An excellent question. Talk about the concrete is not very profitable if one does not first grasp the general concepts and principles involved. This is why philosophy is the queen of the sciences, not the handmaid (although she is the handmaid of theology, for in that case we step up to another level).
Van, I must ask: Did you read my comments about how truth IS, in fact, one? If this point/fact is not understood, little real/substantial progress can be made (imo).
-
I'll get back to you... seems my reply was lost along the way.
If there is one thing I hate, is re-write a post.
-
I hear you on that one, Van. Take your time. I am going out of town for the weekend. Have a good one.
-
Talk about the concrete is not very profitable if one does not first grasp the general concepts and principles involved.
This is poorly phrased, as the study of the particular is what leads to knowledge of the universal.
Truth is like light. When white light hits the prism, it is split up into the various colors (wavelengths) - but it is, in reality, one.
-
I hear you on that one, Van. Take your time. I am going out of town for the weekend. Have a good one.
Worse is, I lost power for a few seconds in my second attempt to post my thoughts. I'll let it sit a day or two, I'm not typing this a third time in one day ! :sign-surrender:
-
Why not consider BOTH specifics and concepts?
An excellent question. Talk about the concrete is not very profitable if one does not first grasp the general concepts and principles involved. This is why philosophy is the queen of the sciences, not the handmaid (although she is the handmaid of theology, for in that case we step up to another level).
Van, I must ask: Did you read my comments about how truth IS, in fact, one? If this point/fact is not understood, little real/substantial progress can be made (imo).
It's fine, I did not mean to speak in terms of specifics exclusively but, I was reading that there was a whole lot of cloud shovelling going on, but it may just be that I simply do not understand what you meant. So in that spirit, yes, please go ahead and clarify what you mean by the truth IS, in fact, one
You may contrast it to my relation with the truth...
I'm not very strong in philosphy but about a year ago, I've become in what are truth bearers. In other words, what is the vehicle of the truth in our relation to one another and communication. I have come to learn (although it's disputed) that statements (spoken, written or by actions) are truth bearer. In other words, a statement can be true, false or indeterminate.
Of course, the way we go about determining the truth value of a statement will depend on the statement, in some cases simple observation suffice, in other, first hand knowledge can be it. In some cases Faith or Revelation can be it.
It really does not matter to me if truth is one. This seems a rhetorical point. What matters to me, is what is the best method to assign a truth value to a specific statement and what happens when various method conflict with one another.
It's all yours.
-
I've become in what are truth bearers.
Please read: I've become interested in what are truth bearers.
-
I'm interested in the various UNtruth bearers that constitute a herd of sacred cows in the academic part of the Modern World.
"What is related in the Gospels about the conduct of Pontius Pilate in the trial and execution of Jesus contradicts what we know of Pilate from ancient historians."
Is that a true statement or an untrue statement?
Untrue, in the classic sense of the word.
We know about Pilate from a SINGLE ancient historian and that ancient historian presents us with a picture of a vacillating yet cruel, cruel yet vacillating Roman governor who on at least one occasion seems to have shown a certain grudging respect for the courage of a Jєωιѕн mob.
But to point out the classic sense in which the statement is untrue is like writing with a quill pen. It's like praying: a total waste of time from the secular point of view. A hundred years ago this would not have been true: believers and Rationalists were still playing by the same rules then.
Modern Man is not interested in a reality-oriented approach to truth. Modern Man is not interested in scholarship and research and reading and contact with reality and all that sort of cranky Aristotelian type stuff.
A Modern Man is forced to accept the statement above as true. True in the only sense of the word that matters in the Modern World.
It's existentially good for the "Devil."
It's a way to bully and hoodwink schoolchildren and promote unbelief and destroy faith. It's a way to maintain a world in which there is really nothing to be done about an Ivy League professor who says that to be ethically responsible we must kill defective babies.
What could be more true than that?
-
Hi Cletus,
"What is related in the Gospels about the conduct of Pontius Pilate in the trial and execution of Jesus contradicts what we know of Pilate from ancient historians."
Is that a true statement or an untrue statement?
Which sacred cow in the academic part of the Modern World wrote the statement above ?
Does it substantiate it's claim with citations ? Docuмentation ?
If you are indeed right and there is only one reference, and that it does not contradict the Bibles description, it does not strike me as very scholarly.
I want to contrast the fact that I speak of research and peer reviewed papers that seek to advance knowledge. Not merely the dispensation of basic knowledge by some zealous individuals. If we are both talking different things, I don't want it to be an apparent conflict between us when there is none.
-
I think that this thread is about schools and what the sons of Hell teach in them.
I said a while back that I thought that the field and the laboratory were not what we are discussing here, in this thread about the movie EXPELLED (from schools).
Of course, no one else has to agree with what I consider to be my disciplined and logical thinking.
But I think that I am allowed to proceed on the grounds that I see as reasonable and eschew what I consider to be diversions from the main point: the Godless control the schools and in the name of Science take away the key of knowledge from young minds and show themselves to be hypocrites when they start weeping and moaning about the introduction of "bad science" that favors belief in God or the Bible in the classroom.
I don't know that any sacred cow said EXACTLY that about Pilate. It's an epitome of what Modern Academe say about Pilate when they contradict what believers say aboout Pilate. Everyone knows that this is what they say: I don't see the point of being a knee-jerk Skeptic (or defense attorney) in regard to what everyone knows is true.
If I quoted one lousy scholar in particular I would be accused of having quoted merely one scholar.
If I quoted two lousy scholars I would be accused of having quoted merely two scholars.
If I quoted a thousand I would be accused (anywhere but in this forum, because of certain accidents of friendly feeling) of needing to get a life.
I know how this game is played.
Everyone knows that that is what the generality of scholars say about Pilate.
Not everyone knows that Philo the Jew was not an historian.
I have no reason to believe that mention of the existence of Philo the Jew has any place in, say, Yale University's most prestigious course on the first century AD history of religion.
I think that the idea of Modern Education as it applies here is to have people going around saying things like, "The Gospels are wrong on Pilate because ancient historians say..."
I think that it shows a touching but dangerous naivete to wax pious about the scholarly world and peer review etc... as though it were still part of the scholarly mind-set even to ask questions such as, "Gee, who exactly WERE some of these ancient historians who supposedly contradict the Gospels."
Once I had occasion to say to an arrogant Ivy Leaguer who was expatiating on the unlikelihood of the Gospel account of Good Friday morning, what with all those trips across town between the abodes of Jesus' various persecutors, "You've never even looked at a map of ancient Jerusalem, have you? You have it in that so-called brain of yours, don't you, that the area in which these events are said to have taken place is along the lines of Manhattan Island itself instead of more along the lines of Central Park? Or rather, Central Park below Cleopatra's Needle?"
He was not irritated. He was scandalized. Antichristian unbelief is a kind of religion with these people.
I think that we are in conflict all the way down the line any way we slice it. I think that in some ways Modern Scholars can be even worse when they are left to their own inbred devices in their own journals and their own camp meetings, contaminating one another in their own obscure lairs.
Another consideration that hasn't been mentioned, not in so many words at least, is that Modern Science is in many ways just the slutty handmaiden of Political Correctness. The voices of the ruling mob carry over into the laboratory and the field just as strongly as they carry over into the schools.
-
-
Just a quick post, as I only just returned from out of town and have much to do...
Van, your English is growing more impressive by the week, but I wanted to let you know about one mistake in your post above. You used "imminent" to modify scholar where you want to have used "eminent". Immanent, imminent, eminent - tough trio. God speed.