If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

God makes all the difference, doesn't He?

Not just God, superstitious beliefs in general.

 

[Speedwell]

Nope; neither honouring or dishonouring God, nor the personal religious beliefs of lecturers, tutors, or students, are relevant to academic teaching and study. If you want to honour your deity (and/or dishonour other people's deities) as you study, go ahead - as long as you don't disturb the other students. You're not required to believe, you're expected to learn and understand the subject.

Of course, he's right in a way. Serious study in many fields--science, of course, but also history, literature, logic, even theology, etc.--will reveal creationists' fantasy of literal inerrancy as the arrant nonsense it is. It would take a strong will to hold on to it even in a university operated by a religious denomination where there is no question of atheism being taught. Many fundies lose their faith at university or, even worse, become Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christians.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Of course, he's right in a way. Serious study in many fields--science, of course, but also history, literature, logic, even theology, etc.--will reveal creationists' fantasy of literal inerrancy as the arrant nonsense it is. It would take a strong will to hold on to it even in a university operated by a religious denomination where there is no question of atheism being taught. Many fundies lose their faith at university or, even worse, become Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christians.

I don't agree; academic teaching shouldn't (and in my experience doesn't) either honour or dishonour anyone's beliefs or superstitions. It's up to the individual how they deal with the information they are given. One can only hope they are taught critical thinking as early in life as possible.

 

[Speedwell]

It's been done: DNA analysis of consecrated sacramental bread refutes Catholic transubstantiation claim.

"Results showed unequivocally that the rituals performed by the priests during the Eucharist sacrament have no detectable effect on the substance of altar bread at the DNA level."

I am not aware that the Catholic church has ever made the claim that it would. Certainly the Anglican church does not.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't agree; academic teaching shouldn't (and in my experience doesn't) either honour or dishonour anyone's beliefs or superstitions. It's up to the individual how they deal with the information they are given. One can only hope they are taught critical thinking as early in life as possible.

If they had been taught critical thinking to begin with the problem wouldn't arise.
That is why the creationists are so dead set against it as part of Common Core standards.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No need to "bring it up." Some smart AP biology student will certainly be asking questions like that

Smart? As in grilling someone about something that is not even known to exist? I'm not that smart and think I can handle that one just fine.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Historically the idea of evolution has been called a theory but don't be fooled by that accident of language and history; the science is settled that evolution happened.

Says you. You deem it accident and we are to see that as fact? You do that a lot.

Yup, I'm throwing something out there as evidence, and in response to your requests for proof.

But something you see as evidence, is far from proof of evolution. The question was styled as it was in order to get a certain response, and you not answering the question, as it was written, makes me think you have no answer to the exact question. Am I correct?

And as I predicted, you utter words disparaging the evidence. You are not an impartial interpreter of the evidence, we all know that.

And you are impartial? Another thing to deemed fact just because you sad so? Please, come down from up there.

IOW, if I disagree there is something wrong with me, so none of those disagreements are valid? Very convenient. Not only was that about as easy to predict as the sun coming over the horizon once a day, but I'd say that's a pretty safe way to conclude yourself right just about every time. Maybe that's the way of thinking that brought evolution from theory to fact?

 

[Greg Merrill]

Nope; neither honouring or dishonouring God, nor the personal religious beliefs of lecturers, tutors, or students, are relevant to academic teaching and study. If you want to honour your deity (and/or dishonour other people's deities) as you study, go ahead - as long as you don't disturb the other students. You're not required to believe, you're expected to learn and understand the subject.

The above sounds like "humanism." Humanism is just man's opinion. When it is all said and done, it won't be about everybody's "religious beliefs", it will be about an appointment we all have with God to stand before Him and give an account of our lives, whether it be our personal lives, what we have taught between one another, or what we have taught from behind a lectern on a platform of an academic institution. "Academic teaching" is not synonymous with "secular teaching." Even teaching about God can be considered "academic". Man may set up standards of "not disturbing other students" or refraining from dishonoring or honoring God, but when all is said and done, we will not be judged by man's standards but by God's standards, and God expects His teachers to honor Him and disturb other students as much as we expect a doctor to upset a patient by telling them the truth that they have cancer.

 

[Speedwell]

Smart? As in grilling someone about something that is not even known to exist? I'm not that smart and think I can handle that one just fine.

So you are denying that there are muscles in our ears that we apparently do not use? You are going to be in more trouble with those AP biology students than I thought.

 

[Speedwell]

The above sounds like "humanism." Humanism is just man's opinion. When it is all said and done, it won't be about everybody's "religious beliefs", it will be about an appointment we all have with God to stand before Him and give an account of our lives, whether it be our personal lives, what we have taught between one another, or what we have taught from behind a lectern on a platform of an academic institution. "Academic teaching" is not synonymous with "secular teaching." Even teaching about God can be considered "academic". Man may set up standards of "not disturbing other students" or refraining from dishonoring or honoring God, but when all is said and done, we will not be judged by man's standards but by God's standards, and God expects His teachers to honor Him and disturb other students as much as we expect a doctor to upset a patient by telling them the truth that they have cancer.

So what you are proposing appears to be that students in the classrooms of state universities should be a captive audience for evangelizing by a particular 19th century Protestant pop-up sect. Is that right? Why should we go along with it?

Let me ask it this way: How would you feel if the exclusive franchise you want for your own sect was given to, say, the Jehovah's Witnesses?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So you are denying that there are muscles in our ears that we apparently do not use? You are going to be in more trouble with those AP biology students than I thought.

You're making things up now. Anyone can see I made no such claim, yet in your second comment there, you present it as fact. Once again with the false comments, because that's what it always takes to win the evolution claim.

And FWIW, I continue to mention what seems to be petty lies so people will watch for them, and how they are constantly used in these arguments, so maybe one day they put together the almost unseen trickery involved in making someone believe the non factual evolution concept.

 

[Speedwell]

You're making things up now. Anyone can see I made no such claim, yet in your second comment there, you present it as fact. Once again with the false comments, because that's what it always takes to win the evolution claim.

And FWIW, I continue to mention what seems to be petty lies so people will watch for them, and how they are constantly used in these arguments, so maybe one day they put together the almost unseen trickery involved in making someone believe the non factual evolution concept.

I was just asking a question: why do we have muscles in our ears which we apparently don't need or use?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I was just asking a question: why do we have muscles in our ears which we apparently don't need or use?

Look a little closer.

"Apparently"? once you're certain, come talk to me.

This is not a fact, and I may or may not give it some thought in the future, but if I was unable to ever give explanation, what exactly would you conclude from that?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"Results showed unequivocally that the rituals performed by the priests during the Eucharist sacrament have no detectable effect on the substance of altar bread at the DNA level."

I am not aware that the Catholic church has ever made the claim that it would. Certainly the Anglican church does not.

I was taught that the Transubstantiation was literal (i.e. the host literally becomes the body & blood of Christ). When I asked why the host looked and tasted just the same as before, I was told it was 'a mystery'.

This was quite a while ago, and I haven't kept up with the details, so there may be a more convincing explanation than 'a mystery', but I suspect it'll just be more obfuscation; a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma - and that's the way they like it.

"Real Magic isn't real, and the magic that is real isn't really Magic" - James Randi. I think that's apposite.

 

[Speedwell]

Look a little closer.

"Apparently"? once you're certain, come talk to me.

This is not a fact, and I may or may not give it some thought in the future, but if I was unable to ever give explanation, what exactly would you conclude from that?

That "apparently" was a concession to your position. Another poster suggested that they may have a use that we just haven't discovered yet, which is a fair point and why I put in "apparently." Still, it's a fact that we have those muscles and a near certaintly that we don't need or use them for anything.

If you were unable to provide the creationist explanation for them I would conclude that either the creationists don't have an explanation or that they do and you just don't happen to know what it is.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That "apparently" was a concession to your position. Another poster suggested that they may have a use that we just haven't discovered yet, which is a fair point and why I put in "apparently." Still, it's a fact that we have those muscles and a near certaintly that we don't need or use them for anything.

You do realize you are just repeating what you now say you didn't say? Near certainty pretty much means apparently.

If you were unable to provide the creationist explanation for them I would conclude that either the creationists don't have an explanation or that they do and you just don't happen to know what it is.

LOL, hard to see that such a thing it worth your time, but far be it from me to tell you what is worth arguing and what is not.

 

[Speedwell]

I was taught that the Transubstantiation was literal (i.e. the host literally becomes the body & blood of Christ). When I asked why the host looked and tasted just the same as before, I was told it was 'a mystery'.

This was quite a while ago, and I haven't kept up with the details, so there may be a more convincing explanation than 'a mystery', but I suspect it'll just be more obfuscation; a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma - and that's the way they like it.

Sounds like the kind of answer nuns give to kids. There is a body of medieval Scholastic discourse involving the difference between "essence" and "substance" etc. which purports to explain it. The overall doctrine of the Real Presence also covers other possibilities besides transubstantiation, adhered to by various Orthodox and Oriental churches as well as mainline Protestant groups like the Lutherans, who believe in consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation (don't even ask). The bottom line is, that the ritual of the Eucharist is intended to provide the believer with an intense immediate personal experience of Christ. Technical explanations are extra, available for those who require such things. I am content, like the nun, to regard it as a mystery.

 

[Speedwell]

You do realize you are just repeating what you now say you didn't say? Near certainty pretty much means apparently.

At the time I didn't realize that I was engaged in an attempt to trick you; I thought I was just idscussing a routine matter so I was not as precise in my writing as I should have been. You can put the "apparently" in or leave it out; I don't care.

LOL, hard to see that such a thing it worth your time, but far be it from me to tell you what is worth arguing and what is not.

I'm wasn't arguing about anything. I was just trying to find out what the creationist explanation for those muscles was. I'm still not sure why you think I was trying to trick you. Do you know why?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The above sounds like "humanism." Humanism is just man's opinion.

No, it's not humanism. It's just academia.

When it is all said and done, it won't be about everybody's "religious beliefs", it will be about an appointment we all have with God to stand before Him and give an account of our lives, whether it be our personal lives, what we have taught between one another, or what we have taught from behind a lectern on a platform of an academic institution.

As I said, you're welcome to believe whatever you like.

"Academic teaching" is not synonymous with "secular teaching." Even teaching about God can be considered "academic".

Teaching about Gods, religions, supernatural beliefs, etc., is fine too. It's just not relevant to maths, geography, physics, linguistics, biology,etc., and only indirectly relevant to literature, the arts, politics, history, etc.

... God expects His teachers to honor Him and disturb other students as much as we expect a doctor to upset a patient by telling them the truth that they have cancer...

Beliefs are a personal thing. If teachers feel they need to honour their deity or other supernatural entity, or follow some other superstitious practice, they're welcome as far as I'm concerned; as long as they aren't a dick about it, and they respect other people's right to their own beliefs or lack of belief.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The bottom line is, that the ritual of the Eucharist is intended to provide the believer with an intense immediate personal experience of Christ.

No doubt; rituals can exert a very powerful influence, particularly reassuring - that's why they're ubiquitous in human culture. But it seems daft to continue to maintain the magic is real when it demonstrably isn't.

Technical explanations are extra, available for those who require such things. I am content, like the nun, to regard it as a mystery.

Obfuscation, opacity, and handwaving aren't strictly 'technical explanations' - one might as well double down and say that the evidence that it isn't magic shows that it really must be magic...