Evolution conflict and division

[The Barbarian]

What level science are you teaching?

I've taught as far down as 6th grade classes. It doesn't come up at that level. In HS and college, the textbook usually says that the physical universe is made up of matter and energy.

 

[Fervent]

I've taught as far down as 6th grade classes. It doesn't come up at that level. In HS and college, the textbook usually says that the physical universe is made up of matter and energy.

In my district its broached in both 7th and 8th grade science, and introduced in 3rd grade. And what does it mean "the physical universe is made up of matter and energy" except to limit what exists(or at least what is relevant) to matter? Especially since most formulations are something like "matter is what the universe and everything in it is made from".

 

[o_mlly]

As you learned, ...

Why does it trouble you so that I do not accept your attempts to "evangelize" me to accept your macroevolution theory? While the "Church of the Barbarian" may require that assent for membership, I reject it. (You should know that my minimum requirement to subscribe to any religion is that its founder raise himself from the dead.)

Truth is singular and independent of the human mind. The academic scribble you post and re-post as gospel is but the product of fallible human minds. Real scientists recognize that fact.

 

[Job 33:6]

In my district its broached in both 7th and 8th grade science, and introduced in 3rd grade. And what does it mean "the physical universe is made up of matter and energy" except to limit what exists(or at least what is relevant) to matter? Especially since most formulations are something like "matter is what the universe and everything in it is made from".

I think what’s tricky here is that saying “the physical universe is made of matter and energy” isn’t actually incorrect, it’s just scoped. That’s what classes like physics are equipped to study. Questions about being, meaning, purpose, or God simply fall outside that domain and belong to philosophy or theology.

And, perhaps part of the issue is that the utility of classes like philosophy or theology aren't as immediately measurable, even though it may play a foundational role in shaping how we understand knowledge, science, and reality itself. People go to school to become mechanics, electricians, doctors, or even tech schools to become carpenters and engineers. These fields have immediate and clear utility.

People don't go to school for philosophy because it's not clear what the tangible outcome will be, even if it is an important field of study.

 

[The Barbarian]

And what does it mean "the physical universe is made up of matter and energy" except to limit what exists(or at least what is relevant) to matter? Especially since most formulations are something like "matter is what the universe and everything in it is made from".

Yep. It specifically limits the scope of the statement to the physical universe. This is why atheist, theists, deists, or whatever, can all do science.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why does it trouble you so that I do not accept your attempts to "evangelize" me to accept your macroevolution theory?

I'm just pointing out that once you accepted God's creation as it is, it would no longer trouble you. Actually, YECs are no less Christians than the rest of us, so long as they don't make an idol of their new beliefs and insist that others must believe them to be saved. While the Church of o_mlly
might say so, it's not true for us as Christians.

While the "Church of the Barbarian" may require that assent for membership, I reject it.

If you'd check the Church's teaching on this subject, you will find that while it say that common descent is "virtually certain", it does not require one to accept evolution to be a Christian. You'll have to content yourself with that.

The academic scribble you post and re-post as gospel is but the product of fallible human minds.

Perhaps you don't know what "gospel" means. I'm just posting evidence. Facts and the implications of those facts. Even your fellow YECs admit that the facts we have are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Do you not see that YEC and science are both the product of fallible human minds? The difference is, scientists don't consider scientific findings to be "gospel." (I'm using the word in the colloquial sense in which you are using it) In science, all findings are provisional on new evidence. The example of finding a rabbit fossil in undisturbed Cambrian stata applies. Or for that matter a finding that refutes any of the four points of Darwin's theory. Which, as you declined to show us after four requests, would be an effective debunking of the theory.

The problem is, many YECs refuse to admit that their new doctrines are produced by fallible human minds.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

The problem is, many YECs refuse to admit that their new doctrines are produced by fallible human minds.

Not to mention translations of Scripture are produced by the fallible minds of man. This no longer troubles me as I trust the Holy Spirit to guide me past the translational bias that inevitably occurs.

 

[Fervent]

I think what’s tricky here is that saying “the physical universe is made of matter and energy” isn’t actually incorrect, it’s just scoped. That’s what classes like physics are equipped to study. Questions about being, meaning, purpose, or God simply fall outside that domain and belong to philosophy or theology.

And, perhaps part of the issue is that the utility of classes like philosophy or theology aren't as immediately measurable, even though it may play a foundational role in shaping how we understand knowledge, science, and reality itself. People go to school to become mechanics, electricians, doctors, or even tech schools to become carpenters and engineers. These fields have immediate and clear utility.

People don't go to school for philosophy because it's not clear what the tangible outcome will be, even if it is an important field of study.

The utilitarian approach to school is exactly why I see it as pedagogical, because we've abandoned teaching skills that are essential to critical thinking and instead reward conformity and consensus.

Yep. It specifically limits the scope of the statement to the physical universe. This is why atheist, theists, deists, or whatever, can all do science.

As far as i am aware, there is only one universe. So what is this "physical universe' that isn't all-encompassing? My issue isn't with scientific procedures or claiming that science as a process contradicts faith, but that most people don't realize that matter is "real" by definition in the model and the success of science doesn't in and of itself imply the truth of materialism.

 

[Job 33:6]

The utilitarian approach to school is exactly why I see it as pedagogical, because we've abandoned teaching skills that are essential to critical thinking and instead reward conformity and consensus.

Did we ever have an education system that taught skills essential to critical thinking that could be abandoned to begin with?

 

[Fervent]

Did we ever have an education system that taught skills essential to critical thinking that could be abandoned to begin with?

Depends what we mean by "we" and education system. There was a time when at least the wealthy were instructed in rhetoric, logic, and such. But public education probably not.

 

[The Barbarian]

As far as i am aware, there is only one universe. So what is this "physical universe' that isn't all-encompassing?

That's something science can't say. Fortunately, there are other ways of knowing.

and the success of science doesn't in and of itself imply the truth of materialism.

Yep.

 

[o_mlly]

I'm just pointing out that once you accepted God's creation as it is ...

I will, when He reveals it to me.

What I do reject is your claim to have already had that Beatific Vision that you believe gives you the right to make your fallible claims in "dogmatic" language. Real scientists are not so pretentious. Hubris is not a good look for you. As today's gospel teaches, you ought to give meekness a try.

 

[Job 33:6]

Depends what we mean by "we" and education system. There was a time when at least the wealthy were instructed in rhetoric, logic, and such. But public education probably not.

Maybe there is something to this then.

 

[Fervent]

That's something science can't say. Fortunately, there are other ways of knowing.

Sure, and as I've maintained my issue isn't with the scientific method it is with the false notion that a posteriori approaches to knowledge are entirely free from a priori metaphysical assumptions and imposed definitions.

Yep.

A fact that is too often lost in these discussions.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are two metaphysical assumptions on which science is based:
1. There is an objective reality in the physical universe, which we can learn about by investigation. (Realism)
2. The rules by which this reality works are consistent and have been since the universe began. (Uniformitarianism)

So far, so good. Notice that there is nothing about supernatural or anything that denies the supernatural in these assumptions.

 

[The Barbarian]

What I do reject is your claim to have already had that Beatific Vision that you believe gives you the right to make your fallible claims in "dogmatic" language.

Again, you're rejecting what God says about this.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

No Beatific Vision necessary, if you can trust God's word. We don't have to have a face-to-face conversation with Him. Actually, that's what scripture is for. And no dogma is required when evidence manifests the truth for us, as He says in Romans 1:20.

And, as mentioned before, you're rejecting what the Church says about this. (which admittedly is not required of Catholics to believe)

Real scientists are not so pretentious.

Guess how we know you aren't a real scientist. There are lots of really pretentious "real" scientists, albeit a small minority among the worlds scientists. But then, I've spent a lifetime in the sciences, and I have known a great many of them.

Hubris is not a good look for you.

Funny how people with hubris, never realize it.

As today's gospel teaches, you ought to give meekness a try.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.

How about we both try that? I'm not the most likely to inherit the Earth, but I try.

 

[Fervent]

There are two metaphysical assumptions on which science is based:
1. There is an objective reality in the physical universe, which we can learn about by investigation. (Realism)
2. The rules by which this reality works are consistent and have been since the universe began. (Uniformitarianism)

So far, so good. Notice that there is nothing about supernatural or anything that denies the supernatural in these assumptions.

You're leaving out a third, that is that cause and effect relationships exist primarily between objects arising from their history. Which is the primary issue. I would also argue that that your second assumption rules out an intercessory God as the Bible presents God.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are two metaphysical assumptions on which science is based:
1. There is an objective reality in the physical universe, which we can learn about by investigation. (Realism)
2. The rules by which this reality works are consistent and have been since the universe began. (Uniformitarianism)

So far, so good. Notice that there is nothing about supernatural or anything that denies the supernatural in these assumptions.

You're leaving out a third, that is that cause and effect relationships exist primarily between objects arising from their history.

That seems unnecessary. And often not even true. For example, the gravity of an object bends the path of photons, but their history makes no difference at all. It's part of the first assumption.

I would also argue that that your second assumption rules out an intercessory God as the Bible presents God.

I don't see how. The Bible mentions that He occasionally intercedes and causes a supernatural event. The fact that He created an understandable and consistent universe, in no way means that He can't step in and act on it, as He wills.

 

[Fervent]

There are two metaphysical assumptions on which science is based:
1. There is an objective reality in the physical universe, which we can learn about by investigation. (Realism)
2. The rules by which this reality works are consistent and have been since the universe began. (Uniformitarianism)

So far, so good. Notice that there is nothing about supernatural or anything that denies the supernatural in these assumptions.


That seems unnecessary. And often not even true. For example, the gravity of an object bends the path of photons, but their history makes no difference at all. It's part of the first assumption.

The specific forces don't invalidate the interaction, as it is the interaction between an object and another object(the photon) that is primary. As for the history, what I am saying isn't that the specific interactions will have a shared history but that the flow of cause and effect relationships is assumed to be a simple move from cause to effect in sequence rather than being shaped by a future purpose. Realism isn't a sufficient condition for science to proceed, without adopting notions about cause and effect relationships.

I don't see how. The Bible mentions that He occasionally intercedes and causes a supernatural event. The fact that He created an understandable and consistent universe, in no way means that He can't step in and act on it, as He wills.

Not occasionally, but is the eternal sustainer who is constantly acting. Uniformitarianism requires that God not be relevant to explain the workings of the universe, only some base property or law for interaction between objects.

 

[The Barbarian]

The specific forces don't invalidate the interaction, as it is the interaction between an object and another object(the photon) that is primary. As for the history, what I am saying isn't that the specific interactions will have a shared history but that the flow of cause and effect relationships is assumed to be a simple move from cause to effect in sequence rather than being shaped by a future purpose.

Which is what the evidence shows. Since science depends on evidence, that's what's needed. This might seem wrong to you, but nothing humans can do, works better for understanding the physical universe. If something else worked, scientist would use that instead of evidence. But nothing else works. So they will continue to learn more about the universe with the tools they have, regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

Scientists are funny that way.

Uniformitarianism requires that God not be relevant to explain the workings of the universe, only some base property or law for interaction between objects.

Wrong. Uniformitarianism would be (for example) consistent with a God who constantly acts on every particle of the universe, but chooses to do so in an understandable and consistent way.