I was taught evolution by priests in high school. That was in the early 80's.
It wasn't even given much discussion. It was matter-of-fact.
There is no contradiction between evolution and Catholic faith.
Why are Creationists so afraid of Evolution?
- Thread starter JarodRussell
- Start date
I was taught evolution by priests in high school. That was in the early 80's.
It wasn't even given much discussion. It was matter-of-fact.
There is no contradiction between evolution and Catholic faith.
A
Amaris
Guest
You're making your own distinct separations and declaring yourself correct. It doesn't work that way.
I said evidence, not conclusion.
Just because people don't agree with you it doesn't mean they're wrong. Or that you are. Unless you are. In which case ... forget it. You'll understand when you understand, and not a minute before.
And with that, I'm done. Y'all have a nice day now, hear?
Why is calling people "stupid disgusting ingrates" a terrible foundation for a belief system and a awful way of looking at things? Well, for one, it's not even based on Biblical teachings, it's just your own personal negative outlook. The original sin and temptation stuff is all there, but not the everyone are stupid disgusting ingrates thing; that's your own addendum.
Why help people like that? Just because you're told to? Why respect them if they're so far beyond respect? Why even get up in the morning if the world is so terrible? I can see why some Christians are so baffled by the fact that atheists manage to get by just fine with their own morality absent of religious guidance; when those Christians look so negatively upon their fellow human beings I guess you would need a religious text to tell you not to kill them or steal from them, because they're totally worthless in your eyes.
Crime is down across the board. School shootings, awful as they are, are extremely rare. More people have more civil rights, educational opportunities, and prosperity than ever before. We cure or mitigate the effects of terrible diseases all the time. People live longer than ever. Genocides are relatively rare. War is on the decline. Political alliances keep tyranny mostly in check. National and international charitable work, medical care, and disaster relief is at an all time high. Terrorism is on the decline. We've never been more interconnected and able to educate one another on our differences and similarities in order to foster greater peace and understanding. We have wondrous technologies at our disposal. Never before has it been easier to acquire knowledge about any given subject. Never have more people been able to share their own works of art, music, etc. across numerous media with a larger audience. The threat of global nuclear war is extremely unlikely.
Does that mean terrible things don't happen any more? Of course not. Does that mean we shouldn't still strive to improve ourselves on a daily basis? Of course not. Does that mean there aren't still environmental threats, human conflict and crime, and disease that we need to try and prevent or reduce? Of course not. Does that mean there aren't lots of people hurting and struggling every day just to get by? Of course not. But all things considered, the world is doing pretty damn good compared to how it has been many times in the past.
If drunken Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver (which didn't even come close to "burning the city to the ground," Captain Hyperbole) are the worst example of humanity that you can think of off the top of your head, I think we're doing okay. And there are so many examples of people doing so much good for others that counteract that story. How about the fact that over 15,000 local volunteers (many taking off work) organized via social media the very same day and that all the garbage in the street was cleaned up from the street by 10:00 AM the next morning and broken windows were boarded up with messages of apology and encouragement? That's people --more people than were involved in the riots by far-- helping out their fellow human beings in spontaneous response to a terrible incident.
How about the airlift and sealift of relief supplies from around the world in response to the Japanese earthquake/tsunami, the Haiti earthquake, the Indian Ocean tsunami, etc? People of faith or not of faith do the right thing in times of crisis, and even when it's not, the vast majority of people are good and simply want to do right by their families, friends, coworkers, and acquaintances. You should try and give them a little more credit.
Ok, Disgusting Ingrates was a terrible thing to say and I apologize. There are so many great people, yet it seems like there are about as equal number of bad people. There was a time where I did think that a person was smart but people were stupid., However, like you said, Locutus, that might be something I need to reevaluate. There is still so much crap in this world though, and I do wish more good news was reported.
As for the worst of humanity, going into an elementary school and shooting 26 innocent people, most of whom haven't had a chance to live is a lot better recent example. I do wish the News would cover the good with the bad, because you're right there is a lot of good in this world. There is also a lot of bad, which is very unfortunate, especially in the time we live in where we should be better than that.
As for the worst of humanity, going into an elementary school and shooting 26 innocent people, most of whom haven't had a chance to live is a lot better recent example. I do wish the News would cover the good with the bad, because you're right there is a lot of good in this world. There is also a lot of bad, which is very unfortunate, especially in the time we live in where we should be better than that.
Last edited:
I only have a problem with teaching creationism in a science class. If it were in a comparative religions class in the social studies department or as part of a mythology course in the language arts department, I would have no problem with it. As long as multiple creation stories are discussed. To treat one supernatural creation story as more authoritative than another would violate the establishment clause of the first amendment.
It seems to me that people can base belief on their perception of the evidence for the belief or on their perception of the consequences of the belief.
An example of the latter: I believe that God created us and gave us His Law in the Bible. If that isn't true, then we have no way of saying what's right and wrong and people are allowed to do anything. That's why it's important to believe. Another example is Carcazoid's point that faith gives us "[h]umility and the awareness of consequences of our actions [and] keeps us from dest[r]oying ourselves."
One possible definition of faith is the disposition to base belief on consequence rather than evidence. Those who have it tend to consider it a moral virtue and beneficial; those who lack it tend to consider it a logical fallacy and harmful.
The above argument for God and the Bible is often heard from the faithful, and they seem to find it satisfying. To those who lack the faith, the argument is nonsense.
Over the course of human history, consequence-based belief and evidence-based belief (i.e., faith and non-faith) have both been adaptive in some ways and maladaptive in others. As time marches on and the body of human knowledge grows exponentially, evidence-based reasoning becomes a more powerful tool, but there is still room for the alternative. Personally, I lack faith and favor evidence-based belief, but I try to understand and see the value in those who think differently.
A
Amaris
Guest
I feel people have every right to believe as they do, and I gladly work to defend that right. Pray, believe, follow your faith as you see fit, until it collides with someone else's rights, or the overall well being of society.
Prayer is fine. Prayer in school? They can do it on their own time.
Belief in a Supreme Being is fine. Forcing it into the science class? I'll be dead set against it.
Want the Ten Commandments in the church yard? Great! Want it in the halls of a municipal court as a sign of God's Law? Nope.
Prayer is fine. Prayer in school? They can do it on their own time.
Belief in a Supreme Being is fine. Forcing it into the science class? I'll be dead set against it.
Want the Ten Commandments in the church yard? Great! Want it in the halls of a municipal court as a sign of God's Law? Nope.
Probably because some believers still want to impose their beliefs on other people, having them enshrined in laws or school curricula.
That's because evolution is a scientific established fact, while creationism is superstitious bullshit.
Maybe we should find some middle ground on other topics, too? Computers are powered by electric power, but there are actually poltergeists doing the calculations? Viruses and bacteria cause illnesses and infections, but it's the imbalance of the four humours that creates symptoms?
False equivalency.
So when people start to actually argue with your assertions, you just quit. Very easy.
Evolution was known and accepted long before Darwin. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection-- since proven by fossil evidence, molecular biology et cetera-- described one of several mechanisms of evolution. This was opposed by religious groups when it was perceived as a threat to religion being taught in public schools.
Check out this Blog (and the books related to it). There's plenty there to make you feel better.
I sympathize with your feelings. But consider this: In evolutionary and geological terms, Humanity is not long down from the trees. In a blink of the eye of the universe, we have gone from just another primate to the builders of a great civilization-in-progress. Despite all the wars and murders and petty conflicts and ignorance and prejudice and hatred, we have achieved all that Locutus outlined above and more-- that means that the goodness in people must outweigh the bad by orders of magnitude. The bad stuff makes the news because it's newsworthy-- the news reports on a house that burns down because millions of houses didn't burn down.
Check out this Blog (and the books related to it). There's plenty there to make you feel better.
Why are you so angry? Aren't you sort of doing a QED on the thread title?
I would have slightly more respect for creationists if they would agree to teach multiple creation stories to their children but, at least in the West, it is only the Biblical creation story they want taught in schools.
That makes sense to you because you put all creation stories, including the Biblical ones, in one category: myths. But creationists don't. They believe that the Biblical story is the literal truth and that the other stories, including evolution, are the myths. So, from their perspective, it would make no more sense to teach other creation stories than to teach evolution.
The core of the Theory has been proven multiple times...
Living organisms do evolve based on external influences...
We are even able to force it and make it work for us, like better crops, differently coloured flowers or dogs that are bred for specific duties, like guard-dogs or hunting-dogs...
Besides the fact that creationists treat rationality and the scientific method as if they were mere options, creationism's biggest philosophical sin is that it believes that there is such a thing as perfection, and that said perfection cannot ever change or evolve. It is, by definition, an anti-progress, anti-intellectual dogma.
My kids are currently in Catholic school, and yes, they are teaching evolution as it is known in the scientific community.
Just wanted to point out that the Big Bang Theory was initially proposed by a Catholic priest.
Similar threads
