Cancellation of Darwin film creates uproar

An archaeologist has some idea of what the designers in question are like. If an archaeologist finds an aluminium cylinder block in stone age strata then she knows that it was not made by stone age designers - she has some idea of what a stone age designer is and is not capable of. ID has no idea at all of what their designer/s can or cannot do. ID cannot even say if there was one or more designers. An archaeologist knows far more about her designers then ID does about its designer/s. That is part of ID’s problem - a designer with undefined powers can never be disproved. If something cannot be disproved then it is not science.

rossum

People seem to be conflating ID with the recent attempts to use ID as a method of introducing creationism in the classroom. As a science, attempts to quantify and recognize the acts of an intelligent agent as opposed to random events is a fascinating field of study. SETI is just one example in which this ability is crucial. Fear that it will be misused is no more a valid argument against it than protesting the use of telescopes for fear that people will look for God.

If your obsession is pointing to a designer, that does nothing to disprove finding an artifact on another world that should not be there or scientists looking for intelligent signals from outer space. And if they got those signals and determined they were receiving some sort of language, what would that tell them about the being or beings that sent it?

Peace,
Ed

Among professional biologists there is no controversy about evolution as an overarching theory or explanatory framework by which to account for biological diversity on earth. There are of course controversies within evolutionary biology about mechanisms, and these are discussed in the classroom all the time.

You are right about atheism posing as science; atheism and theism have no place in the science classroom or laboratory.

StAnastasia

In the States, I imagine it has to do with the separation of church and state…

The SETI scientists are not looking for language at all - how would we recognise an alien language? All they are looking for is narrowband signals. All known natural signals are broadband signals, currently the only known narrowband signals are made by humans. Finding a narrowband signal is an indication that the signal may not be natural.

rossum

All the more reason to have a robust science in place to differentiate randomness from purposefulness. Though the discovery of narrowband signals would be an indicator that a signal may be of intelligent origin, I see no reason to quash a field of study simply because we have a primitive and arguably sufficient screening process in place for SETI.

aka - separation of truth and state.

So, are you saying that everything that every church in the US teaches is the truth? The Mormon Church? The Church of Scientology? All the Native American Churches?

rossum

Not at all. We know better don;t we? :smiley:

What I am saying is truth = creator. Most of us call God. Truth/God should be acknowledged in the classroom.

We do not have to teach any particular religion. Public schools of years ago had no problem acknowledging God the creator we acknowledge in our founding documents.

Actually our constitution is written to prevent the state from intruding into religon. There is nothing to prevent the reverse. A political appointee to the supreme court whose credentials included southern votes for Roosevelt, KKK life member and extreme anti-Catholic bigotry wrote the “Wall between church and state” opinion in 1948. His opinion might have been more accurate he written it as a “Wall between the Catholic Church and the State”. Few realize that that political principle was rejected by every justice on the Marshall and Taney courts.

You are entitled to say what you want. I am entitled to disagree with you.

Truth/God should be acknowledged in the classroom.

In Hawaii there are towns where the majority of the population is Shinto or Buddhist. Should the truths of Shinto and Buddhism be acknowledged in the classrooms of public schools in those towns at taxpayers expense?

We do not have to teach any particular religion.

I have no problem with a Comparative Religion class which covers many religions.

Public schools of years ago had no problem acknowledging God the creator we acknowledge in our founding documents.

Buddhism for one has no creator; the question of the origin of the universe is explicitly stated to be a non-religious question. IIRC in Shinto the Creator is female, would that have a place in your non-specific creation class:A deity or deities, who may have been male or female, may or may not have created the universe an indeterminate time ago. Those deities may or may not currently still exist.

rossum

rossum

Well rossum we have a conundrum here don’t we?

We either commit ourselves to teaching only partial truths and deal with the consequences to society or we commit to making sure the truths we teach are entirely true. In addition we now have to ignore our founding documents.

I propose adding mandatory metaphysics and philosophy class. In this way students would learn the mechanisms to see how the truth search is done.

I support teaching St Thomas Aquinas’ ways to know of our creator. This wouldn’t suit you, but I know for sure my ancestors came to this country for opportunity and knowing its Christian roots and values. That is why I am here and that is the way I want it to remain. I am not sure why you are here (your background) but you do live in a Christian nation.

buffalo, the United States is not a “Christian nation” – it is a nation with some Christians, and some Native Americans (from whom the “Christians” stole the land) and some Buddhists, Jews, Muslim, Hindus, agnostics and atheists. The US is a pluralistic society, and it would be very difficult to decide which minority metaphysical claim we should force on everyone else.

Of course, Christians can form their own Christian schools and send their children there – as I do – just as other sub-groups can form their own schools for their children. We have beautiful Catholic morning prayers at our school, but I do not expect to see these prayers enforced throughout the state school system.

StAnastasia

Huh? 76% of America is Christian.

Have you read the founding documents lately?


That is patently false. Do you know why “In God We Trust” appears on our money? The origin of using the Bible in a court of law?

You are obviously unable to see that your own Church does not force anyone to belong. I suggest you stop listening to the militant radicals for a moment and go back to the Bible. God does not force you to love Him and neither does the Church.

If you continue to listen to those who have forced themselves to live in a militant, radical world where they have made themselves the victims, then you have forgotten how God invites us, not forces us. We are to believe and act freely.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, I’m not sure what puzzle piece you are missing. Of course I see that my church invites rather than coerces – that’s precisely what I meant by talking about my having sent our kids to Catholic school. We weren’t forced - we were invited. We believe and act freely, just as you say. You’re baying at the empty wind!

Percentages are irrelevant. The fact is, we live in a culture in which religion is not established by the state. People may practice and believe as they see fit, but not impose their particular forms of belief on others. If you want your kids to pray in school, send them to a religious school of your choice.

And you are dodging the rest of my post as if it doesn’t exist. Bible in the courtroom? Origin? Huh?

Peace,
Ed

We live in a culture founded on the Judeo Christian pillars.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.