The Creationist Museum

[Amppax]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1340941078' post='2450267']
I need to go create a second account so I can prop that again.
[/quote]

All the mods liked that. It's like they are daring me.

[Papist]

Am I understanding that now I can teach Origin of Species and Descent of Man to my young Catholic students? If not, why? I am curious b/c there seems to be much support of Darwinism here, and that it is synonymous with evolution. I always believed evolution is not incompatible with Catholicism, but Darwinism is. Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth. I always believed Darwin's 5 distinctive themes were much more philosophical than scientific. Perhaps I have the wrong understanding of Darwinism.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1340930456' post='2450211']
Why should he be ashamed? I hope you'll be ashamed one day of how you talk down to people who do not share or challenges your world view.
[/quote]
[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1340939681' post='2450258']
You come across as an ass and a snob
[/quote]

Matthew 7-5 "[color=#000000][font=Corbel, Verdana, sans-serif][size=1][size=4]You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye[/size]"[/size][/font][/color]

Edited June 29, 2012 by Jesus_lol

[Amppax]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1340986571' post='2450400']
Am I understanding that now I can teach Origin of Species and Descent of Man to my young Catholic students? If not, why? I am curious b/c there seems to be much support of Darwinism here, and that it is synonymous with evolution. I always believed evolution is not incompatible with Catholicism, but Darwinism is. Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth. I always believed Darwin's 5 distinctive themes were much more philosophical than scientific. Perhaps I have the wrong understanding of Darwinism.
[/quote]

I had thought it was the other way. Pretty sure evolution as a theory was compatible with Catholicism, JPII said something along those lines. I think Darwinism is has largely fallen out of favor as far as evolutionary science goes, I think there have been theories. I could be wrong though.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1340986571' post='2450400']
Am I understanding that now I can teach Origin of Species and Descent of Man to my young Catholic students? If not, why? I am curious b/c there seems to be much support of Darwinism here, and that it is synonymous with evolution. I always believed evolution is not incompatible with Catholicism, but Darwinism is. Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth. I always believed Darwin's 5 distinctive themes were much more philosophical than scientific. Perhaps I have the wrong understanding of Darwinism.
[/quote]
Darwin has never been condemned by the Church and [i]The Origin of Species[/i] was never on the Index of forbidden books. I consider it to be erroneous and damaging to suggest that Darwinism (in the most general sense of evolution by natural selection) and Catholicism are at odds. The only reason I can see for young Catholic students not reading those books is that they'd probably be bored to tears. Also, if your purpose is to teach evolutionary biology you'd be much better off with a modern textbook.
As I said before, Darwin was completely ignorant of most of the material that would be covered in an undergrad evolution textbook today. Much of what Darwin explored on the level of hypotheses and speculation, in particularly the mechanisms of evolution, has since been understood via a mountain of accumulated evidence, observations, and experiments, as well as major discoveries in biology such as genetics. Evolutionary biology is Darwinian, but it has gone far beyond what Darwin himself could have imagined.

As mentioned before, when people mistakenly equate historical Darwinism with evolution, i.e., contemporary evolutionary biology, it makes me think of equating physics with Newtonian physics. I both am and am not a Newtonist, depending on exactly what you mean. I'd say the same about being a Darwinist. Similarly, EB is Darwinism and it is not Darwinism, depending on what you mean.

And I would say teach Darwin as you would teach any other important figure in the history of science. Given the available evidence and understanding of the time his achievements were immense and profound. He's truly one of the greatest scientists of all time. Why take a crap on him?

Anyway, [i]Darwinism[/i] is used in various ways and for this reason I don't much like the term. It's sometimes a creationist epithet implying atheism and materialism (i.e., evolution as ideology rather than as science). It is sometimes just a general term for evolution by natural selection. It can refer to early movements in some way connected with evolution, including social Darwinism. It can refer to the work of Charles Darwin, as seems to be the case in your post. Et cetera. The term Neo-Darwinism seems to have taken on some of this charged ambiguity as well.

P.S. I'm far from an expert on evolution or creationism, but in my opinion the term Darwinism is often some kind of a PR strategy to paint evolution as a philosophical ideology comparable to Marxism, and deny it as a legitimate science -- or at least generate fear and doubt in peoples' minds. Hence, creationist and ID literature will relentlessly refer to scientists as [i]Darwinists[/i] and mainstream scientific concepts as [i]Darwinist[/i], often with plenty of peripheral innuendo. The word is seldom defined; it's enough to just imply that it means atheist, materialist philosophy and/or dogmatic scientists committed to a dubious ideology. This is NOT what the Catholic Church has to say about evolution. The Vatican sponsored 2009 conference marking the 150th anniversary of [i]The Origin of Species[/i] offers a more Catholic point of view, if you ask me. I wish the proceedings were available online some place... Maybe they are.

edit: added spacing for readability.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[Ice_nine]

I think both sides are arguing past each other.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1341000742' post='2450484']
I think both sides are arguing past each other.
[/quote]
What do you mean?

[cmotherofpirl]

No the problem is not defining terms EXACTLY and sticking to them.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1341001458' post='2450494']
No the problem is not defining terms EXACTLY and sticking to them.
[/quote]
Yeah, that would be helpful. I'm already unclear on the nature of the discussion. Discussing the philosophical implications of evolution, or questions of philosophy of science, is obviously quite different from a discussion of the scientific basis of evolution as a fact. I guess it's normal for forum discussions to go all over the map though.

Btw, it's about 100 degrees in my office today so forgive me if my posts make no sense (no AC or anything). I feel like croutons. lulz.

NO! The crap filter is back. My day has been ruined.

Whoa. Why did it filter crap before and not the second time? fiddlers are drunk.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1340939681' post='2450258']
You come across as an ass and a snob when you attack those that are critical of that world view personally.
[/quote]
I seem to remember you coming across that way with people who are unfortunate enough to lack the truth of Jesus Christ. Looking in a mirror and seeing someone else's reflection! You have a lot of knowledge of scripture if only you could realise what it means.
What Jlol said!

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1341002140' post='2450503']



Whoa. Why did it filter crap before and not the second time? fiddlers are drunk.
[/quote]
The filta only works on souls! Trollface.

[Papist]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1340999665' post='2450472']
Darwin has never been condemned by the Church and The Origin of Species was never on the Index of forbidden books. I consider it to be erroneous and damaging to suggest that Darwinism (in the most general sense of evolution by natural selection) and Catholicism are at odds. The only reason I can see for young Catholic students not reading those books is that they'd probably be bored to tears. Also, if your purpose is to teach evolutionary biology you'd be much better off with a modern textbook.
As I said before, Darwin was completely ignorant of most of the material that would be covered in an undergrad evolution textbook today. Much of what Darwin explored on the level of hypotheses and speculation, in particularly the mechanisms of evolution, has since been understood via a mountain of accumulated evidence, observations, and experiments, as well as major discoveries in biology such as genetics. Evolutionary biology is Darwinian, but it has gone far beyond what Darwin himself could have imagined.

As mentioned before, when people mistakenly equate historical Darwinism with evolution, i.e., contemporary evolutionary biology, it makes me think of equating physics with Newtonian physics. I both am and am not a Newtonist, depending on exactly what you mean. I'd say the same about being a Darwinist. Similarly, EB is Darwinism and it is not Darwinism, depending on what you mean.

And I would say teach Darwin as you would teach any other important figure in the history of science. Given the available evidence and understanding of the time his achievements were immense and profound. He's truly one of the greatest scientists of all time. Why take a crap on him?

Anyway, Darwinism is used in various ways and for this reason I don't much like the term. It's sometimes a creationist epithet implying atheism and materialism (i.e., evolution as ideology rather than as science). It is sometimes just a general term for evolution by natural selection. It can refer to early movements in some way connected with evolution, including social Darwinism. It can refer to the work of Charles Darwin, as seems to be the case in your post. Et cetera. The term Neo-Darwinism seems to have taken on some of this charged ambiguity as well.

P.S. I'm far from an expert on evolution or creationism, but in my opinion the term Darwinism is often some kind of a PR strategy to paint evolution as a philosophical ideology comparable to Marxism, and deny it as a legitimate science -- or at least generate fear and doubt in peoples' minds. Hence, creationist and ID literature will relentlessly refer to scientists as Darwinists and mainstream scientific concepts as Darwinist, often with plenty of peripheral innuendo. The word is seldom defined; it's enough to just imply that it means atheist, materialist philosophy and/or dogmatic scientists committed to a dubious ideology. This is NOT what the Catholic Church has to say about evolution. The Vatican sponsored 2009 conference marking the 150th anniversary of The Origin of Species offers a more Catholic point of view, if you ask me. I wish the proceedings were available online some place... Maybe they are.

edit: added spacing for readability.
[/quote]

Thanks. That makes sense. So what you are saying today's Darwinism, is not really of Darwin himself. But bares his name b/c he basically laid the foundation? And that people have hijacked it to further their cause? That would make sense with early 20th century history

Also, I think it unmerited of you to say I am taking a crap on Darwin. I don't believe I did such a thing. I have not took a position. I even stated, perhaps I have the wrong understanding of Darwinism. I am trying to be honest b/c if I don't I can't advance my knowledge. I do respect yours L_D, which is a reason I decided to participate in the post. I really enjoy exchanging posts with you.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1341008575' post='2450571']
Also, I think it unmerited of you to say I am taking a crap on Darwin. I don't believe I did such a thing.[/quote]
There's thunder outside so I can't post much, but I wanted to say that I didn't have you in mind when writing that sentiment. Sorry for the ambiguity. And I don't think anything you've said has been unreasonable.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1341002140' post='2450503']

NO! The crap filter is back. My day has been ruined.

Whoa. Why did it filter crap before and not the second time? fiddlers are drunk.
[/quote]

Go read the Marse thread in Open Mic. All will become clear.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1340942780' post='2450281']
All the mods liked that. It's like they are daring me.
[/quote]

Um...