How about teaching evolution at Sunday school?

What sort of "equal" treatment do you mean ?Do you mean special classes about a particular religion - with a requirement to support each and every religion ?Do you mean putting religious beliefs into science classes ?Do you mean claiming that religious beliefs ARE science even though they aren't ?And what about those Christians who do accept evolution ? Are you claiming that they don't exist ?[This message has been edited by PaulK, 10-27-2003]

quote:

---

A Biblical teaching of Creation is not likely but a scientific teaching of creation is what many would consider a reasonable request.

---

Ok, what is the testable hypothesis of creation?
How can that hypothesis you are about to provide be falsified?
What is the evidence supporting the testable and falsifiable hypothesis that you were just about to present?
How does it better explain the cumulative data from paleontology to molecular biology better than competing hypotheses or theories?Can't answer the above questions? Then that explains why creationism is neither a science and why it should not be taught in a science class at a public school.

quote:

---

Many polls would seem to indicate this.

---

And you think scientific facts are determined by polling? Great idea, 85% of American kids under 5 probably believe in Santa Claus so Santa must be a fact..great way to determine things

quote:

---

Also, pick up a Catechism of the Roman Church, written in 1996 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The Roman Church does not support the evolutionary beliefs that modern evolutionists hold dear.

---

Why should scientists care what the Catholic church advocates or does not advocate?

Now that is interesting since I've been told that the RCC does accept evolution as God's way of forming life on earth.I don't think there would be anything else that would matter. I couldn't, in a quick search, find the text of this, could you post the relavant parts?BTW, if it talks about soul or spirit I, for one, don't care. That has nothing to do with evolutionary science. It only has to do with individual beliefs and some biologists will believe that and others won't.

Evolutionists are christians as well, and being such they tithe to the church. So, should evolution be taught in Sunday School by your line of argument? Well, yes if an evolutionist is tithing.The other problem with your argument is that there is more than one religion in this country. Some believe that aliens started life here (Raelians I believe), should that be taught in the schools just because they pay taxes? Or should we take the higher road and go with what science has the best evidence for (by a long shot) which would be evolution. After all, it is a science class and not a comparative religious course.

Apostle writes:

quote:

---

The evolutionists money is not going to the Sunday school programs

---

In the United States, churches are tax exempt and are not paying their fare share. Our money is going to their programs, albeit indirectly.

quote:

---

However the creationist does send their money to the school programs, so should equal time be given?

---

No.Education is not about "equal time" or "fairness." Education is about teaching what we reasonably understand to be accurate.Just because somebody fervently believes something to be true doesn't mean he's accurate.By this logic, we should give "equal time" to those who deny the Holocaust. Would you agree with that?

quote:

---

a scientific teaching of creation is what many would consider a reasonable request.

---

But it isn't.A "scientific teaching" of creation would indicate that there is absolutely no evidence for it. Can you imagine the response from the parents?Science class, like all of eduction, is about the teaching of what we reasonably know to be accurate. And that is evolution. There simply isn't anything else.

quote:

---

Many polls would seem to indicate this.

---

Science is not a popularity contest and it couldn't care less what people want.Many polls indicate that the majority of the US population thinks that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the September 11 attacks. That doesn't make them right.School is for showing the evidence that we have, not the whims of dominant religion.

quote:

---

Also, pick up a Catechism of the Roman Church, written in 1996 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The Roman Church does not support the evolutionary beliefs that modern evolutionists hold dear.

---

Be specific.Methinks you are confusing evolution with morality. Could you give an example of what one of these "evolutionary beliefs" are?You need to pick up the Magesterium of Pope John Paul II referring to the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII. I think popes outrank cardinals. Basically, the official Catholic position is that the human body evolved, but the mind was a gift from god and is not an emergent property of the brain: Try again, Apostle.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mammuthus,Your quote in message 77 is this: "Why should scientists care what the Catholic church advocates or does not advocate?"To answer your question I would say that few should and even fewer care. However, someone suggested that the Catholic church did support evolution. They cited the Pope's famous adress to the Papal Academy of Sciences as evidence for this. Now ofcoarse, the Pope, evolutionists, even scientific creationists all agree that evolution occurs. Scientific creationists differ when it comes to macro-evolution. The Pope would also be against this. Yes the pope supports evolution, but I feel it is misleading to not say what that evolution is. The Pope and the Roman Church would favor the Biblical account of Creation.Who cares? You dont have to. I was merely correcting another responder's statement.Apostle

I think that if you dig a bit you will find that the Catholic Church does support "macro evolution". If you don't you could try the thread on that topic.
EvC Forum: Macro and Micro EvolutionHere is what I think is a Catholic source on this subject:
http://www.cin.org/visevol.htmlWhat I read them as saying is:
1)The entry of the human spirit is not a subject of the study of science. "'if the origin of the human body is sought in living matter which existed before it, the spiritual soul is directly created by God."2)In the last 50 years there has been a great deal more leaned which supports the ToE as understood by science.
"'Humani Generis'," he stated, "considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' as a serious hypothesis, worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection on a par with the opposite hypothesis. ... Today, more than a half century after this encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. ... The convergence, neither soughtnor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."3)Both aspects of the development of human kind must be considered.
"To tell the truth, more than the theory of evolution, one must speak of the theories of evolution. ... There are thus materialistic and reductionist readings and spiritual readings."And in what appears to be a pretty good summary:
"Consideration of the method used in diverse orders of knowledge allows for the concordance of two points of view which seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure with ever greater precision the multiple manifestations of life and place them on a timeline. The moment of passing over to the spiritual is not the object of an observation of this type, which can nevertheless reveal, on an experimental level, a series of very useful signs about the specificity of the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of the awareness of self and of its reflexive nature, that of the moral conscience, that of liberty, or still yet the aesthetic and religious experience, are within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology extracts from it the final meaning according to the Creator's designs."Sorry, Apostle, this is theistic evolution all the way through. If we disagree I guess I'm going to have to wander up the road to my Catholic friends and get him to check in at church. If there some other input you would need?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-24-2003]

Nosy - I've just given the Macro/Micro topic a "give it a rest" temporary closing.I,however, have re-opened Apostle's "The Roman Catholic Church and Evolution" topic.AM

Yea, I noticed right after that you had tucked it in for a nap. It's ok, I agree with you. It was moving too fast for any of us to keep up with.

wrong thread..sorry------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato[This message has been edited by Asgara, 11-24-2003]

quote:

---

The evolutionists money is not going to the Sunday school programs, and if he does not want to send his/her children their why should he/she worry about what is being taught.

---

(Wandering in late...) I don't know about anybody else, but some of my money is certainly going to Sunday School programs, and I care very much about what my children are being taught there. Given the make-up of my church, I don't seriously expect Sunday School to teach evolution, but I do think they should teach that Christians hold a variety of views about the meaning of the Genesis account and its relationship to science. I too was raised in a church that rejected evolution and experienced severe spiritual stress when I started to learn more about the realities of science. I'd just as soon spare others that experience.

The realities of scicence should not cause you spiritual distress unless you belong to a church that finds fault with all scientific theories (In which case you should have found a new church). What I say next is in response to your message, but has little to do with this particular post of teaching evolution in Sunday schools.
The realities of science, enables us to be aware of the change and variation that exists in society and life in general. Those who are religious cannot deny this, they also have no reason to. It is not a reality of science that man and ape have a common ancestor. Nor is there any scientific evidence that life, when traced back, arose from a primordial soup. While this theory is becoming less popular and newer versions are taking form, the 'realities' that your make note of are believed by many, but it is not through evidence but from the need for information to satisfy the desire to delete a Creator from the picture. There is so much that science cannot explain and it is both arrogant and intolerent of them to refuse to consider the fact that all that we know has a Creator. Many religious people ( in your case I believe it would be Christians) do not refuse science. But please let us not trick ourselves into believing that the many evolutionary claims are in fact 'realities of science.'
I hope this does not seem like a tirade against your message, however I think it might be. In one sentence, my point is this: Christian accept science, but not the macroevolutionary claims that you refer to as 'realities of science.'
Sincerely
Apostle

I suspect that you have no way of doing this, nor will you attempt to, but I have to ask you to support such a statement.

Apostle writes:

quote:

---

Christian accept science, but not the macroevolutionary claims that you refer to as 'realities of science.'

---

Um, if we can see it happen right before our eyes, how can it not be a reality? 29 Evidences for Macroevolution------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

When you SAY that "christians accpet science" you really mean that Christians like you accept science EXCEPT when it contradicts your religious beliefs. And in that case you start making excuses. I suppose you think that an unbiased scientist would pretend that the evidence showing that humans share a common ancestor with apes doesnot exist. Is that it ? Or are yo simply rejectign a reality of science without even looking at the evidence on the assumption that it cannot exist ?