6degrees Astroblog
What Should be Taught in Science Classes
By Irwin Horowitz, 5-03-08
 |
|
 | |
|
For nearly a century a battle has raged in our country over the nature of science and how it should be taught to public school students. When Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859 based on his observations of various animal species during his voyage on the H.M.S. Beagle, it immediately crystallized a growing disagreement between the proponents of a divinely inspired origin to life on Earth and those who looked for a natural explanation for the multitude of species.
Early in the 20th century there was an increasing emphasis on teaching this new concept to students. However, by the mid-1920s, a number of states began passing legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution. The most notable of these was the Butler Act of 1925, passed by the state of Tennessee. This legislation was the basis of the famous Scopes “monkey trial,” which was fictionalized in the play “Inherit the Wind.”
By the 1960s there was near-universal acceptance of Darwin’s ideas. With the repeal of the Butler Act in 1967 the last vestiges of the opposition to teaching evolution had faded away. However, a new form of anti-Darwinist backlash was taking hold in the guise of “creation science.” Rather than continue to fight a losing battle to keep students from learning about the scientifically approved version for the origin development of life on Earth, fundamentalist Christians chose to follow a different tactic.
They spent enormous amounts of time and effort trying to disprove evolution via natural selection. They would argue that their ideas deserved equal time in the public debate. They encouraged like-minded supporters to run for school boards and to then implement their agenda by requiring alternative explanations be taught in science classroom.
Unfortunately for the proponents of biblical creationism the one thing that they haven’t tried to do is conform to the established guidelines on what actually constitutes science. There is a good reason for that. It is because the arguments in support of their ideas never actually enter the realm of science.
What is science?
According to the practitioners of science, there are certain irrefutable characteristics for any concept to fall within the realm of science. Among these are the following:
1. It is guided by natural law;
2. It explains the empirical evidence already collected;
3. It makes testable predictions;
4. Its conclusions are tentative and it acknowledges its own limitations; and
5. It is falsifiable.
By any account, the story of creationism fails each and every one of these requirements. The essential basis of creationism depends upon belief in a supernatural source, beyond the scope of natural law. It flatly rejects the wealth of scientific data collected across a broad range of disciplines since the dawn of the scientific reformation. It fails to make any testable predictions and insists that the answers must conform to a predisposed conclusion. It denies its own limitations and any attempt to expunge it from reality. Lastly, it is simply not falsifiable.
What is creationism?
I have spent hours trying to answer this question. As an atheist, I truly have no conception of what constitutes creationism. I have been steeped in the disciplines of science throughout my adult life and have difficulty reconciling the statements made by proponents of this particular concept with my understanding of how the universe actually functions.
Recognizing and admitting my limitations regarding creationism, I will attempt to describe this story as best I can. The central theme of creationism appears to be biblical inerrancy. That is, the words found in the Bible were literally handed down directly from a supreme being, generally referred to as God. As such, they are not to be questioned or modified or rejected by the faithful. If, according to Genesis, God created the heavens and the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh, then believers take that in a literal sense. As an atheist, a question I have is if God is omnipotent, why did he need to rest?
Young-Earth creationists, who represent a sizable fraction of all believers in this biblical story, make the additional assumption that our planet (and indeed the entire universe) came into existence about 6000 years ago. This date is based on the works of Archbishop James Ussher (Church of Ireland) in the mid-17th century, who examined the Bible and other sources to determine the “date of creation.” His analysis resulted in a date of 23 Oct 4004 B.C.
As an astronomer, the adherence to this analysis by young-Earth creationists leaves me baffled. I routinely use my own telescope to observe galaxies that are millions of light years away. For instance, when viewing the Andromeda Galaxy, the light my eyes detect left nearly three million years ago, back when our distant ancestors were first learning to walk upright on the plains of Africa.
I look at the images and spectra of objects that are even more distant which are acquired with professional telescopes. I thrill to the latest discoveries of my fellow stargazers who push back the limits of our ignorance to address questions related to how the universe has come into existence.
I had the privilege back in 1989 to attend the launch of the Cosmic Background Explorer at Vandenberg AFB in California. This satellite has revolutionized our understanding of the conditions present in the early universe a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. The Hubble Space Telescope, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, the Chandra X-ray Observatory and the Spitzer Space Telescope have each made fundamental scientific contributions to this picture of how our universe originated and evolved over the past 13.7 billion years.
Radiological dating techniques of meteorites and of ancient rocks show that our solar system first formed about 4.6 billion years ago and that the Earth began to cool around 3.9 billion years ago. The earliest confirmed fossil evidence for life dates to a few hundred million years after this time period. Thus, the continued adherence to a belief in a young Earth flies in the face of all of the scientific evidence.
All of this constitutes empirical data that have been painstakingly acquired over the past several centuries by dedicated professional scientists. None of it supports the pronouncements made by the proponents of creationism. When they attempt to make arguments based on science, their naiveté and lack of depth is painfully evident.
Lastly, I would like to address the subject of falsifiability in greater depth. One of the hallmarks of any scientific theory is that there must be some manner by which it could be shown to be incorrect. Without this feature, then all of the results of science would be suspect. We couldn’t really reject the notion that the Earth was flat. We couldn’t really reject the notion that leeching blood would cure disease. We couldn’t really reject the notion that your bundle of joy arrived via the stork.
Whenever I encounter a proponent of creationism, I ask them to suggest an experiment that I can conduct or an observation that I could make in which the results could conclusively demonstrate to them that their idea is wrong. It is a challenge that has yet to have any response.
Perhaps one such observation may be the discovery of intelligent extra-terrestrial life. If SETI were to acquire an unambiguous signal from the depths of space, would that be sufficient proof of biblical errancy? After all, there is no mention of life beyond the Earth in the Bible. It would be a rather large gap to have left out.
Without such an empirical test that could conclusively disprove the concept, it is not acceptable to teach creationism as science. It has no business being discussed in any public school science class and to insist on having it taught based on a notion of “equal time” rejects the very important notion that students should be learning science in those classrooms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Returning to the evening skies this month is the innermost member of our solar system. Mercury is visible after sunset near the Pleiades star cluster. By mid-month it remains above the horizon for two hours after sunset. It will rapidly close on the Sun after that, reaching inferior conjunction by early June.
This world, the most mysterious of the five naked eye planets, is the cover story (subscription required) in the May issue of Astronomy magazine. They report on the first spacecraft mission to Mercury in over 30 years. A flyby of the planet by the MESSENGER spacecraft in January provided a wealth of new data and images of regions that had never been previously observed. The probe will enter orbit around Mercury in three years and will give an unprecedented view of this world.
Mars is gradually moving further away from us, making it fainter and smaller when viewed through a telescope. It is leaving Gemini and entering Cancer this month and will appear to cross the prominent cluster M44 (Beehive Cluster) from 21-23 May. For those with telescopes, this is an excellent opportunity to observe the motion of one of our planetary neighbors against the backdrop of stars and to contrast the salmon color of the “Red” planet with the white color of most of the cluster members.
Saturn continues to dominate the early evening skies in springtime. It remains visible just east of the bright star Regulus in the constellation of Leo. Through a telescope eyepiece, the rings are easily discernible, though their opening angle is decreasing as we approach ring plane crossing in 2009.
Jupiter is rising earlier every day. At the start of the month it is visible shortly before 2 a.m. on the southeastern horizon and stands high up in that direction by dawn. By month’s end, it will rise just after midnight and will dominate the pre-dawn skies for the next few months.
The Boise Astronomical Society will be holding their monthly membership meeting at the Whittenberger Planetarium on the campus of the College of Idaho in Caldwell on Friday, 09 May at 7 p.m. The following day is National Astronomy Day and we will be providing the public with opportunities to view the Sun at the Discovery Center of Idaho in downtown Boise starting around 10 a.m.
The observatory at Bruneau Dunes State Park is open for public viewing every Friday and Saturday evening. There is a 25” telescope available, which is the largest such instrument in the state of Idaho. These evenings also include a presentation on some astronomical topic in the classroom located next to the observatory. There is a nominal fee for the presentation and viewing along with a vehicle entrance fee at the park (entrance fee waived for overnight campers). The observing season will continue through early November.
Once again, I invite members of astronomy clubs located throughout the New West region of coverage (CO, ID, MT, OR, UT, WA, WY) to me their upcoming events so that I can publicize them here on my blog.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
But the bigger problem is that, due to NCLB and teaching to the test and so on, there's hardly any *time* for science, particularly the lab science that helps students discover critical thinking skills. My daughter is in second grade and sometimes they don't even *have* science of any kind. I was talking with some people about how many of the experiments we grew up doing in science lab are no longer done.
Similarly, I heard a girl the other day taking about how she wanted to be a vet, but she bemoaned the fact that she'd have to talk math "all the way to trigonometry." That was only 11th grade math when I went to school.
If our kids aren't being taught math and science at all, it doesn't matter whether it's evolution or intelligent design.
The think I love about science is that once you learn the basics you can look for things that fit the rules and things that fall ourside what you are expecting. Then you can try to figure out what really is happening. That makes the world interesting and promotes learning at all levels.
Not having the Spirit, Mr. Horowitz would think Creationism is foolish and grasp for some explanation of life. 1 Cor 2:14 says, "But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appriased." God is a step ahead of Mr. Horowitz.
One thing that bugs a multitude of people is that evolution and a bazillion-year-old universe (give or take a few hundred million years) is continually put in our faces by uninformed and unthinking people.
Take time to look at and think about things. The miracle of the human body. The miracles of nature. Just the other day I was looking at the Rocky Mountain Front from a distance and realized how thin and miraculous is the atmosphere. It protects us from radiaition and extremes of heat and cold. It provides oxygen. It carries clouds that provide life-giving mositure. All this by chance? I don't think so.
We will continue to hear foolishness from the great unregenerate thinkers of the world, and that's okay. Those of us who have, only by God's accord, had the scales removed from our eyes, yearn for truth and justice, even in this world.
I believe we should seek a way for both reason and faith to co-exist in the educational system. They don't always have to be mutually exclusive, except for those who hold a "fundamentalist" position on either extreme. I do ascribe to a form of creationism, but not in the strict "fundamentalist" sense of the word. Cosmology does show us that the world is much older than 6,000 years. God's "days" are not limited to literal 24-hour time periods or any other finite measurements of time. I have never limited the Infinite to my own finite understandings.
Let's relax and acknowledge the meaning of our existence will be better understood through continued explorations by both avenues of reason and faith. In my view, this is not a form of niavity, but wisdom.
In Florida , an atheist became incensed over the preparation of Easter and Passover holidays. He decided to contact his lawyer about the discrimination inflicted on atheists by the constant celebrations afforded to Christians and Jews with all their holidays while atheists had no holiday to celebrate.
The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the long passionate presentation by the lawyer, the Judge banged his gavel and declared, 'Case dismissed!'
The lawyer immediately stood and objected to the ruling and said, 'Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and many other o bserva nces. Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah...yet my client and all other atheists have no such holiday!'
The judge leaned forward in his chair and simply said, 'Obviously your client is too confused to even know about, much less celebrate his own atheists' holiday!'
The lawyer pompously said, 'Your Honor, we are unaware of any such holiday for atheists. Just when might that holiday be, your Honor?'
The judge said, 'Well it comes every year on exactly the same date---April 1st! Since our calendar sets April 1st as 'April Fools Day,' consider that Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, in my opinion, if your client says there is no God, then by scripture, he is a fool, and April 1st is his holiday! Now have a good day and get out of my courtroom!!
Way to go, Judge! AMEN
You people are a piece of work. What is it you offer to the community beyond self-righteousness, useless dismissals and bad jokes?
Try reading ALL the words in Horowitz' fine article, instead of just the ones that light up your religious hackles. (And a little Matthew 6:6 wouldn't hurt you either, as Sharon suggests.)
Giving creationism equal time with evolution would be like giving astrology equal time with astronomy or giving voodoo equal time with medicine.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/atheistholiday.htm
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have
heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they
have been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers or elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason, and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live to it."
The Buddha, in the Kalama Sutra
There are, of course, eminent people in science who cannot explain to their satisfaction who pushed the plunger to start the Big Bang. That is the sort of Descartes deal of doubting it all up to and including your own existence, but by doubting, proving your existence. There are those in science who still think that no matter how far back you can go to find the origin by scientific method, there are still questions without answers. And if they dare utter one word about faith or intelligent design, they lose tenure, jobs, grants, standing in science. Not at all tolerant of believers, that Big Science. And Horowitz is a good Centurian for the cause, a herald as it were.
Stein's movie takes you far beyond the messy little disagreements over creationism and Darwinism, to examine the historical and political outcomes of rigid adherence to Darwinism, not at all a pleasant memory.
So, since Horowitz has opened the door, I would urge people to see the Ben Stein movie "Expelled", just to see one man's view, one man's interviews with people on both sides of the question, or really, statements made by Horowitz, as he is parroting the party line. Stein's movie is a nice counter point to this article.
Buddhism is kind of the anti-dogma religion. Instead of laying down all sorts of pronouncements about Thou Shall and Thou Shalt Not, it basically says, hey, here's some stuff, and it's worked for a lot of people for several thousands years, so give it a shot. If it works for you, too, great!
Just out of curiosity, what would you consider to be the basic tenets of science? Should concepts that fall outside of those tenets be taught in science classes? I note in your ad hominem attack on me that you fail to respond to my challenge on the falsifiability of creationism. Do you believe that this particular story is falsifiable? Do you think this feature is a basic aspect of science? If not, why not?
The other says that, in the mainstream, science has a lot of answers for a lot of things, but it fails us at the beginning, at the Big Bang, or whatever is the starting point, and since mystics, seers, soothe sayers, nor science have a control, any replication by experiment, any forensic evidence to this point, we can have the comfort of knowing in our minds that something with higher powers than man is/was at the controls. Not really earth shaking thinking, that. Or you can believe that the scientific answer is just around the corner. Your call.
If you go too far off the path in any adventure, you might fall of the edge of some precipice and perish. So many people want to have a path with a journey's end, and who would I be to deprive them of that? And others want to have all their questions answered by science, and accept no others. And who would I be to disparage those folks? To get along in the world, there are times and thoughts that have to be tolerated to the end that we all have the right to pursue our happiness, enjoy our freedoms, live our lives as we see fit.
You might have a point to disagree with all I have to say, and that is your right. My right is to be able to say it, to believe as I might. And I want all to have both those rights. In that vein, I accommodate other views, visions, and idiosyncratic behavior as long as it does not keep me from my doltish ways, from my pursuit of windmills and the like. Live and let live.
So, I take it all in, and some with a grain of salt to make it palatable. But if anyone thinks I will buy into strict Darwinism, with the accoutrements of stuff like eugenics, mercy killing, the State pulling the plug on people in dire straits, forced sterilization of genetic train wrecks, all with the unique mathematical precision of science for support, you will have a fight on your hands. Don't even go there. For science does not have a conscience, a soul, and as such, lacks the essential humanity that distinguishes humans in all our forms and states from pure evil to heavenly good. I ain't gonna give that up for you or anyone else even though I cannot prove my position by replication of results through experiment, by mathematical equation, by theory based on proven facts. It is my beliefs and my humanity that are at stake. And yours.
If the Pharisees had got around to talking to Jesus about creationism vs. scientific explanation, I imagine he would have said something about rendering on to reason that which can be reasoned, and let God be content with the mysteries that remain.
Regarding Ben Stein's release "Expelled:" I find it reprehensible to attribute to evolutionary biology the notion that the Nazi's were just some form of Darwinian automaton, responding to the dictates of natural selection when they murdered over 11 million innocents including 6 million Jews. Social Darwinism is completely unrelated to Darwin's theories of natural selection. There was nothing natural in what the Nazi's did in their concentration camps and repeated attempts by the proponents of biblical literalism will not stick when this is pointed out.
Elegance in simplicity.
Irwin asks, what should be taught? Sharon hits the nail on the head. Use the KISS principle. Learn the basics: math, English composition, biology, chemistry, and physical science. The US educational system is failing at the most basic level.
bearbait argues to respect the volatile incompatibility of scientific theory and religion and keep them separate. Give each their space. I agree with him too. When it comes to a debate between theology and theoretical science let the combatants use nothing sharper than words. To argue for a stronger science curriculum doesn't require a contentious refutation of theology to make the point. Just my opinion.
I went to parent-teacher deals over the years, school carnivals, whatever it was a parent was supposed to do. With grandchildren, I have been to school with them. System overload is what I see. So many visual stimulants in the classroom I have to wonder how you keep a kid's attention. But that is method, not subject.
There is no end to the science that a kid should be taught. I have a Mormon friend whose boys are a high tech engineer, a nuclear engineer, a mechanical engineer, and one soon to be a physician's asst. In no way do science and religion conflict their lives. They are complimentary.
Religion is not to be taught in public schools, which is a no brainer. So I have no qualms with science being taught to any degree, but I would draw the line if science stuck its nose into religion. It is not difficult for a teacher to avoid that conflict at any level of education, including graduate school. The conflicts always arise with smarty pants science types with limited social skills showing us how complex their body of knowledge is, and how only simpletons have faith. And the donnybrook follows. Or a true believer of some super conservative religious denomination decides that religion trumps science, and the donnybrook follows. Common sense has to prevail. Civility has to prevail. This can never be Mosul, Karbala.
I have not had any organic chemistry since high school. All I remember is how huge and complex carbon molecules can be, and how statistically remote it would be for random events to invent proteins out of multiple molecules of differing design, enough of them to kick start reproduction of those proteins in a colony and call it "life." My math skills are also limited, but since there are monster computer banks out there that have yet to produce a viable answer, I will not attempt one. I will not worry about even having an answer. I want kids to have access to all the science they can handle in public school, science not tainted by intelligent design theory or religion. At private schools, schools of religious basis, science can contain whatever beliefs are germane to their followers. Grads of those schools are welcome to teach in any public schools with credentials, but not to interject religion into the fray of learning.
I remember 7th period calculus class, a hot afternoon, no air conditioning, Mr. Kipper writing barely decipherable solutions on the chalk board up front, and the door opens, a kid sticks his head in and says "Sorry to bother, but we need so-in-so at the stage for the assembly at 3:00." Kipper turns around and sardonically says "God helps those who help themselves." At which time the only Jewish kid in class turns around to the boy at the door and says "Ask God to be your stagehand." Snickers everywhere. That was the only time I remember religion in public school. And my high school had a Mormon elder for a principal, and he was hiring people of his faith for every vacancy. He once called me out of class to meet him at my locker. Blood was dripping out of it, and had pooled a little on the floor of the back hall. I had pheasant hunted on the way to school, and my Model 12 (broke down in my newspaper carrier's bag), vest, shells, and a pair of roosters and a wood duck were hanging in my locker. Not one word said about any of it but "Clean up the blood and next time put the birds in a plastic bag." A different time in the New West. Like many who respond here, I often wonder if things do get better or just more complex, with less joy, less comfort, and way too many new worries.
Currently we inhabitat a paradise called earth that humans seem "hell bent" on destroying and, far too many, use belief in a Creator as a justification for destroying the "Creation". Science which first starts with knowledge, then into invention and then into civilization has created as many problems as it has solved. So obviously both science and religion, to date, are not "the answer". And I don't know what is.
But I do know this, irrational beliefs, backed by nothing more than mirages, may plunge us back into the "dark ages". Where does one draw a line on such out- rageous beliefs such as: 911 was a Bush conspiracy, that Black United nation helicopters are invading this country, the earth is 6000 years old or that the debate about wheather the earth is flat or a sphere should continue because of a perverted sense of "fair play".
What would ID have to say? Wow, this is so complex, forget about understanding this, this had to be an intelligent designer at work. And that's fine but it's not science and you can't do anything with it. Reconciling your faith should never be an easy exercise and we don't need to give people another excuse not to think. We have American Idol or Expelled for that!
Author Flores Girl: The Children God Forgot and the MillenniumWriting.com Blog
My only contention with what you wrote concerns the statement:
"Science which first starts with knowledge." In reality, science begins with ignorance. It is from that state of not knowing that one can move towards a state of understanding or knowledge. We employ the scientific method as the means to accomplish this transition because it has been shown to be a valid method of doing this.
Bearbait,
Thank you for your response. It seems now that you are generally in agreement with the basic thesis I've initially posited in this column...that public school science classes should focus on teaching science and that the story of biblical creation falls outside of that realm.
One can certainly make a case regarding the manner in which evolutionary biology and/or Big Bang cosmology are taught, in which the empirical evidence supporting these two subjects is laid down like brickwork to establish the foundation of support for both models, but it is important to note when the hard data is lacking and conjecture begins to enter the discussion. However, this is by no means to be construed as an avenue for introducing concepts that lack a scientific basis into a scientific discussion.
Erik,
I am not sure whom you are referring to with your initial question and subsequent comment. I am the one asking what should be taught in schools and I come down strongly on the side of teaching science in science classes and not anything from the bible. As your comment seems to imply, this is a position you agree with.
Lastly, Craig, while I realize you are responding to some detail in bearbait's comments, the link you provide has no relevance to the discussion being presented here regarding the teaching of science in science classes and seems to simply be an example of a non sequitor.
Complexity is in the eye of the beholder, or is that the duh-holder?
Intelligent Design has zero scientific facts. There are no publications, no peer reviewed journals, and no scientific debates where Intelligent Design doesn't have to step back and say "here is the giant magic fella, he did it". There is no controversy. Those "scientists" that continue to push for ID had better pony up and actually deliver on the goods or they will be let go, fired, pink-slipped and/or given the boot, with justification.
As well, you might stop believing the Discovery Institute if you knew exactly how many lies that they have been caught in. They are the major backers of the Expelled film, as well as a new group called Biological Institute.
On top of it all, attempting to conflate the ideals of organic evolution with any sort of social eugenics practices is creating a bogeyman that isn't real. Martin Luther preached eugenics long before Darwin's theories came out. Darwinism is an examined science, eugenics is a practice of nothing more than tribalism, a low order brain function that we as intelligent beings are usually way above due to the nature of community and survival being closely linked.
Challenges to evolution need to start from the basis of science. So far no challenge has met the requirements to be considered serious.
Mr. Horowitz' guest column here is a column, which differs from a report. It is one person's point of view. Anyone who would like to write a guest column disagreeing is always invited to send one to me at . If it's written well enough - not its content, but the basics of acceptable writing - we will almost always run it. The rules are no profanity, no personal insults such as "you people, you're like...." or "Mr. Writer obviously comes from the school of stupid" (Actual quote from past submissions) or any insult naming an individual.
Now if science is to be composed of only linear thinkers, then that is their lot. However, society has to also embrace abstract thinkers, to break molds, wander through the thought process at will, for us to enter new paths and fields of possible answers to unknown questions. If what I have read about physics is true, great leaps forward have been made by people who could not offer up a complete truth using scientific method. Only long after the idea has been out there, and long after it has been accepted have some sort of proofing methods worked. The person knew the answer, but not exactly what the question was. They knew the destination, but little of the journey. I don't want that type of thinker to be destroyed by littler minds who have a firm grasp on only what has been proven without doubt, by some other person whose mind they will never be able to enter. And, I don't want to punish those who have attempted to find the answer to creation and failed, to be stoned by academics for their common failure.
Intelligent design is only a thought, a faith, an answer to a question science has yet to answer. And we know that vast sums are spent annually to find the answer to what all this is, and why is it here, and who the hell are we. Not everyone is blessed with super intelligence. Most of Earth's peoples are damned lucky to have a roof and a pot of food, let alone time to ponder creation. A huge chunk of the world has had answers driven into their heads in early childhood religious regimes of blind obedience. None of what we discuss will ever be a part of their world. Actually, infidels like me can be dispatched without guilt, without blinking an eye. That bothers me. I would think it bothers anyone in academic science or in research. But that is the real world. So my hope is that this is not a society of exclusivity, one that does not tolerate anything but scientific reason. To think otherwise makes my skin crawl. All the self preservation skills I possess go on early warming mode. I am very wary of True Believers of any stripe, from academics to religious to sports fans to racial purists.
All evidence that has been offered up for Intelligent Design comes down to personal incredulity. That isn't enough to form a theory. There is no evidence, and given the writings of the demi-gods of ID, Behe and Dembski, there never will be.
But I also see you ignored my challenge, something I would expect of Craig. Name one person that has been fired for studying Intelligent Design. But beware, you probably don't know the whole story behind any single person you can name, and I'll come down on the misinformation hard.
Come on, who can be the first one to make that claim?
Or maybe the banana argument. Thats my personal favorite. Kirk Cameron, what a joker.
As well, you then imply that those for whom materialism is a way of life are nihilistic and lost. How utterly uninformed of you.
Your personal assualt is so typical. This column has nothing to do with me. Please stay on topic.
The only side claiming any sort of persecution would be that of Intelligent Design. Evolutionists/Materialists don't bother, they just continue to laugh and point at the worthless propaganda that the IDists continue to push.
And this is the topic Craig, please stop whining and whinging.
Sound familiar? Your statement, taken at face value, goes way beyond that article. If you're unable to write clearer, I suggest you might step back for a moment and get yourself edumicated like your favorite president.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1211593-1,00.html
Collins is an evangelical twit that has attempted to ride Dembski's coat tails to a life of luxury funding by the Disco Institute. He's a whore for Jesus and his arguments are nothing more than religion hidden behind a thin facade of science.
Collins' poor argument that God created Man and the beasts are evolved is a joke amongst most evolutionists. His leaps of logic are only heralded by those that try to paint ID and creationism as a harmless foray, a simple challenge to evolution, when it is no such thing. Creationism and ID are theological attempts to invade an academia that has rejected their fictions and hidden agendas. There is absolutely no reason that scientists should have to take time away from valuable research to answer ridiculous theological arguments that stem from a book that contradicts itself more than it agrees with itself. Give it up.
You insult Collins as a "whore for Jesus." When you have accomplished as much with your life in the advancement of science as Collins has, please let us know.
I did point it out, you're just too dense to recognize it for what it is. Your statement is straight out of a "teach the controversy" pamphlet handed out by the Disco Institute.
And my second post about Collins already addressed your points. He still doesn't get a pass for his early works and his "human elitism" is a pathetic attempt to justify an evangelical religion.
As long as religious extremists continue to attempt for force their doctrines on our secular system this debate will only get more extreme.
I should caution you before trying to step in the middle of the pissing contest between Jay and Craig. This isn't the first blog post at New West where these two have gone after each other and it won't be the last, I'm sure.
That being said, perhaps I can strike a note about trying to return the discussion here back to the topic at hand, which is the nature of the curriculum to be covered in public school science classes.
I want to emphasize the limited nature of what I'm addressing. I specifically rule out private educational institutions which are free to teach what they desire within the confines of a particular state's educational requirements.
I also specifically refer this to science classes rather than more general scholastic areas. I would not have a problem with the story of biblical creation being taught in a class about comparative religion and philosophy (as long as it was presented in a neutral manner along with a range of other concepts).
I would not have a problem with a class teaching the bible as literature. It is, after all, one of the greatest works of fiction ever written :-) and has had a profound effect on western civilization. I would not have a problem with a class dealing with the role of religion and faith in society in both an historical as well as contemporary context. I just have a problem with teaching this story in science class.
Mostly, I feel that the most appropriate venue for teaching biblical creation is in the church. As I have mentioned to Dave elsewhere, this is where it should be taught. As a minister, I am sure he would prefer to be able to present the story in a context with which he is most comfortable.
Perhaps I can suggest another avenue for discussion regarding this topic. Biblical literalists desire to have the government provide them with "equal time" to present their particular belief system in the public schools. Would it be fair then, on the basis of this "equal time" argument, for the government to provide naturalists (evolutionary biologists, observational cosmologists, etc.) with access to church pulpits to promote the scientific rationale for the origin of the universe and the evolution of life here on Earth?
I doubt we naturalists would be too interested in this access, and as staunch defenders of the 1st amendment we believe in a strict separation of church and state, but consider this viewpoint to understand why we vigorously defend the teaching of science in these classes.
While I think it's ludicrous to believe that the creation story (not to mention, which one? there's two) in the Bible is literally true -- the earth is not 6000 years old and so on -- I do not discount the possibility that some extraordinary Force started the wheels all turning at some point billions or trillions of years ago to create the universe, the galaxy, or whatever. However, I don't believe it should be taught in science class. We don't know, we can't know, so it doesn't belong there. Philosophy class, religion class -- go for it.
Scientific principles aside, too many people believe in too many different types of "how the world was created" to expect a single teacher to be able to address it, unless that is the *purpose* of the entire class -- in which case it's philosophy, comparative religion, or whatever.
"Irwin asks, what should be taught? Sharon hits the nail on the head. Use the KISS principle. Learn the basics: math, English composition, biology, chemistry, and physical science. The US educational system is failing at the most basic level.
bearbait argues to respect the volatile incompatibility of scientific theory and religion and keep them separate. Give each their space. I agree with him too. When it comes to a debate between theology and theoretical science let the combatants use nothing sharper than words. To argue for a stronger science curriculum doesn't require a contentious refutation of theology to make the point. Just my opinion."
It seems odd that science seems to be limited to evolution and a denigration of theology in these types of discussions. Keep theology out of the science classroom. Denigration of theology doesn't belong in the science classroom either. There is so much more, like the human genome which doesn't require a reliance upon theology or a refutation of it to unlock its secrets.
There are non-negotiable distinctions to be made. Whatever God is, is not, did do, or didn't do, She is free to audit any classes She likes, but She is not allowed to speak up. We, Her creation, if it pleases you to imagine the universe that way, have been empowered, and charged with working things out on our own.
Maybe it was that fateful apple that did it, and if we'd just stayed away from the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we could live in the world so many people seem to long for. How nice that we have such vivid imaginations that we can conjure such things into meta-being, at least, and discuss them to our hearts' content in philosophy and theology classes, and in a Baskin-Robbins variety of religions.
If the forces of non-science (and non-sense) wish to tilt at these windmills in their religious enclaves, more power to them. If they wish to promote magical thinking as a legitimate subset of rational thinking, less power to them. Tolerance has boundaries, and these are amply clear.
The interpretation of persistence of dispute in the face of clear instruction is an open question, but after a reasonable dialogue, we are justified in questioning the good faith (not to be confused with the Good Faith) of disputants.
I should also note that while Craig's enthusiastic praise for the bon mots I put in Jesus' mouth are flattering, I have made no mystery of the fact that I'm an atheist. (Note to David: this says nothing about my "belief system," but simply relates that I find no reason to believe in a personal--or impersonal for that matter--Deity.)
There is ample cause for wonder and awe at our universe, considered by the micron, acre, or parsec. There is more here than we will ever know. What a glorious opportunity! As Robert Bly said, translating Kabir, Fantastic! Don't let a chance like this go by.
Get your head out of that book and look up at the stars for God's sake.
In fairness to both viewpoints, each should seek to at least acknowledge the avenue of the other, without necessarily endorsing it. In a science class, the belief system of creationism should be acknowledged as an alternative viewpoint without discrediting it. The reverse should also be true. Those who teach creationism regardless of the setting, should also acknowedge the value of scientific method. They each provide us greater understanding to the meaning of our existence. Students should be encouraged to weigh the evidences from both avenues and come to their own conclusions. I do, in fact, have a deep appreciation for both science and faith.
You said that as long as the religious extremists continue forcing their doctrines on our secular system this debate will only get more extreme. You are half right on that one. Some atheistic extremists are also seeking to force their own doctrines as well. That is why I continue to appeal for a little more middle ground here. I honestly believe we can continue learning from one another - if we are not hell bent on converting the other to our own belief system.
No evolutionary science answers the question of where did the first life begin? And if it is all evolution why didn't it all involve into the same thing, or perhaps did life spring up in different areas at different tiems and under different circumstances?
By the way there were other beings for Cain and Abel to marry, remember? The apple tree as well as other trees were already in existance. There is no indication that the world was created all at one time, in fact it says it was created over time, and God's time is not the same as our time. Adam and Eve were last.
Elegant simplicity.
Dave, there are no other viewpoints that are supported by science, so why would "creation" be discussed in a science class? Evolution only teaches about the diversity and adaptability of species and the common ancestry of all known life on Earth.
Evolution is supported by an incredible amount of data, but when you start filling children's heads with fictional accounts of creationism you end up with nutcases that believe that the Grand Canyon was formed by the "Great Flood". Naturalism/Materialism is a method by which nature can be studied and understood, as well as benefited by that learning.
All, and I mean ALL, of the data that is used to support ID is based on incredulity of the complexity of micro structures. Instead of being amazed and learning how those microstructures evolved from simpler structures, ID encourages scientists to just stop and step away from the microscope. If we do that, then we are losing a great amount of future knowledge and capability. Cures will be lost, understanding will be lost, and possibly the entire future will be lost.
Teaching any sort of "controversy" in science when there really isn't one is detrimental to the future generations. Some even go so far as to compare it to child abuse (Dawkins in particular).
Evolution/Biology/Naturalism all pass judgment on theology by their very nature, there is no way to take out that judgment without crippling the basic foundation of the science. If your little snowflakes go home and challenge their belief systems, so much the better. If you don't like those challenges? Beat it out of them, make them fear your God because otherwise faith is going to slowly die around us.
That is an exciting future, one that I hope my children are able to really advance and benefit from.
Marion - check to see if "inference" is in your lexicon.
David - I'm sorry, science class is not the place to generously "acknowledge" beliefs which have nothing to do with science.
Science is precisely about discrediting unsubstantiated beliefs. If you propose some form of creationism (such as "Intelligent Design") as science, it must come to class ready to be discredited. See Irwin's requirement #5. The good news is that evolution has to stand for the same treatment.
"God created the heavens and the earth" is a charming (if self-centered) notion of how the universe came to be. It is not a scientific claim. Its only place in science class is to serve as an example of non-science.
"Here there be dragons." And they chase their tails.
Irwin, I would take one issue with you on the comment made about the Bible being only a great work of fiction. Certainly the literalness of some of the characters/events is debateable, but it is not a work of fiction in the pure sense of the word. It is more than that.
Craig, I appreciate your comments regarding the "appropriate respectful separation of science and theology without passing judgment on either." Elegant simplicity indeed.
I am a Christian. I am telling fellow Christians to stop using the "we don't know what God really meant" argument as it is completely irresponsible.
Second, no human being knows how old the earth is, when it was formed, how human beings were created, when and for what purpose.
SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE ANY OF THIS!!! Science merely tries to provide evidence to support theories, but no-one can be sure.
Why? Because, no-one was there when it happened!!!
Please, stop telling me that ALL scientists say this and say that. Science has been proving science wrong for hundreds of years.
Atheists, agnostics and evolutionists try to discredit the Bible all the time by quoting this verse and that verse. In doing so, they can try to show contradictions and rightly so.
But, the same can be done with science.
How many times have scientists changed their theories on hundreds of issues?
How many times has one science experiment proved another science experiment wrong?
I have heard a variety of ever-changing theories explaining what killed the dinosaurs over the last fifty years. So, let me ask you this:
How many times can science get an answer wrong before it loses its credibility?
Religion is faith-based, but so is science/evolution.
The big bang, rain on rocks, complex chemicals, single cell organisms, etc. to present day is a pretty huge leap of faith.
- Scientists cannot tell us where the particles came from that were needed to create the big bang. They cannot replicate it either.
- Scientists cannot tell us how rain falling on rocks can make complex chemicals. They cannot replicate it either.
- Scientists cannot tell us how these complex chemicals formed life. They cannot replicate it either.
We are all entitled to our opinions and I think we can all agree to disagree.
However, we are all taxpayers (Christians, muslims, atheists, etc)! We all pay for and fund public schools.
Therefore, why should the Christian teaching of creation be excluded from public schools? Why can't it be taught as one of the possibilities along with evolution and any other options out there.
If we are trying to educate our children, wouldn't it be better to provide them with all the options instead of shutting every hallway door except the one that leads to "the evolution room?"
This injustice absolutely wreaks of an "agenda" and I will do everything that I can to change it.
If the public school system continues on this course, then an educational voucher program should be instituted that allows parents to pick what school their child attends.
Right now, if a Christian family wants to send their child to a Christian school, they get no money to help cover tuition costs. But, If they send their child to a public school, the public school will get a voucher from the government for that child. How is that fair? The vouchers are tax dollars. All public monies were once private, so the argument that somehow sending public tax dollars to private schools is wrong holds absolutely no water.
If we want our educational system to improve, then we need to create competition for all schools. We have competition in every other aspect of life (grocery stores, shopping malls, etc.), why not in our schools? If schools had to attract the parents of children and make positive efforts to get them to attend their school in order to get their "voucher," you can bet positive changes would be made in quick order. Want an example? Look at our university system. Our country is falling behind in K-12, but our colleges and universities attract people from all over the world.
Under this approach, curriculum would improve and expand to attract a broader market of families, quality of teachers would improve, cleanliness would improve, maintenance would improve, extracurricular activities would improve, sports programs would improve and efficiency overall would improve. All this would happen simply by making schools market themselves to parents and children.
Anyone who understands economics, free market systems and free enterprise can see it plainly.
Be polite and have a great night!
You've gotten so much wrong, I don't know where to start, but your basic misunderstanding of science is the main thing.
As well, you don't understand the Establishment Clause or all of the court cases that have upheld the Establishment Clause.
You're a theocrat, you believe that Christianity is absolutely true and you want everyone to live under it.
You can fight for whatever you want, but you'd better get used to losing. Oh wait, it looks like you're already there.
"First, the latin word YOM means a 24 hour period. This is the word that was used in (written in latin) Genesis when God spoke about the "days" of creation."
The first five books of the Old Testament are known as the "Mosaic" books because Moses wrote them. Moses wrote them a long, long time ago. Moses was not a Roman. Rome did not yet exist. Moses did not write them in Latin. Consequently, what word was used in a particular Latin translation is irrelevant.
"However, we are all taxpayers (Christians, muslims, atheists, etc)! We all pay for and fund public schools. Therefore, why should the Christian teaching of creation be excluded from public schools?"
You're answering your own question there. All taxpayers, including non-Christians, pay for and fund public schools. So why should a Christian version of the creation story be taught in public schools, unless you're suggesting that *every* possible version of the creation story be taught as well?
I've pointed out in a previous comment some areas where the story of biblical creation may be taught in a reasonable setting (and in a manner that lacks a religious bias or agenda). I've also been consistent in pointing out that science classes are not that setting, since the story is not scientific.
Fortunately, our judicial system understands this basic dichotomy and continues to support the teaching of science in these classes. Unfortunately, there are too many people like TW who refuse to accept or understand this and insist on having their way or they'll throw a temper tantrum.
I'll reiterate a point I made in a previous comment for TW: would you be OK with the government telling your minister that he must permit scientists to teach the scientific theory of the origin of the universe and/or evolution of life on Earth from his pulpit? That is essentially what you are demanding with your position.
Who put the burr under your saddle? The pursuit of science is part of the quest for understanding the truth of our existence - whether or not you want to acknowledge it. Perhaps its just a problem in the semantics we're each using. I'm not placing a judgment on what you 'grasp' on this topic & you don't know me well enough to tell me what my "problems" are. Lighten up on the judgments please!
Learning about science is learning the evidence and the scientific theories that are based on that evidence. Practicing science is a pursuit of understanding. Until you know science, you can't practice it.
And no, the semantics are not the problem. You want to explain the origin of life, the diversity of life and the purpose of life all in one simple answer, and that answer is based in religious theology.
Evolution only takes on the diversity of life. It has nothing to do with the other two. The fact that it doesn't explain them is not a problem for Evolution nor scientists. Want to know the purpose of life? Meditate and think about it for yourself. Want to know the origin of life? Go to the anthropologists (who are all well educated in evolutionary theory) and demand an immediate answer. You'll get more than you can ever absorb, all with spacious evidence and a lot of guessing.
There is no way to teach ID nor creationism as a scientific topic. None, zero, zip, nada. Why? No evidence, no data, nothing that can be repeated, falsified, tested and verified. Without that, it is just another crackpot theory without teeth and it belongs in the dustbin until such time as it has all of those things. Unfortunately for ID and creationism, by the very definitions of those theories those things don't exist.
So you can be polite, you can chastise me for being nasty, you can appear to be pious and generous and compassionate, but you still don't know what you're talking about.
No one needs theistic beliefs to be moral, kind, compassionate and find purpose in life. Only the religious seem to need the fear of retribution from an angry god, or the promise of a reward for being good to justify their daily intentions and actions.
As well, how did your original accusation in any way add to the discussion of teaching religion in science class?
Craig, I appreciate what I sense is a desire for some middle ground on your part. Jay, I experience you as arrogant, angry & judgmental towards anyone who doesn't share the same view as your own. Your need to ridicule anyone you percieve to have any kind of theistic viewpoint is unfortunate. I hope you will reconsider that in the future.
How should I handle it when people like Marion say "it is just a theory", and despite being corrected dozens of times continues to misunderstand a scientific theory with an idea-theory.
How should I handle it when people like Marion make the claim that no transitional forms have been found or that no new species have been seen in a laboratory environment? Or maybe I should be kind and gentle to Kirk Cameron who believes that today's bananas somehow prove the existence of God, even when it is easily accessible knowledge that can show that 100 years ago bananas were a completely different shape and almost a completely different fruit?
How many times should I tell the same set of people that they are making mistakes, that they need to stop the misinformation and try to understand that evolution is backed by centuries of experiments, data and documented facts? How should I go about explaining that favorable mutations have a 1.9% chance of "setting" into the genealogical trees of species while unfavorable mutations have a .1% chance?
Dave, thank you for your calm understanding. Let's lift our glasses in an Irish toast to Jay:
May those that love us, love us.
And those that don’t love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if he doesn’t turn their hearts,
May he turn their ankles,
So we’ll know them by their limping.
Just so you know, there were people present to witness the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is pretty well written about, documented, studied and discussed if you care to look for information on the subject.
AND, let me ask you this:
If someone held a gun to your head and said, "tell me that evolution is wrong and a false teaching or I am going to kill you," what would you do? I am guessing that you would tell them what they wanted to hear in order to survive. Anyone posting willing to die for Darwin's theory of evolution? Probably not, unless you actually witnessed it with your own eyes, but even then, you would still probably lie to save yourself as there is no benefit in being honest in this situation for non-believers.
So, when Christ's disciples were asked to renounce their teachings or be killed, why did they choose crucifixion, stoning and death? A lot of things are debatable, but all of these deaths are written about outside of the Bible and pretty well documented throughout our history if you merely investigate it.
Why wouldn't they just lie to save themselves? Would you die for a lie? Maybe it is because they actually witnessed the life of Jesus Christ and believed what they saw with their own eyes. I'll let that one settle for a while.
Back to subject:
Jay,
I don't want to hear about your carbon dating and fossils dating rocks and rocks dating fossils evidence as it is considerably flawed.
I want you to prove and show evidence for these three items:
The big bang, rain on rocks, complex chemicals, single cell organisms, etc. to present day is a pretty huge leap of faith.
- Scientists cannot tell us where the particles came from that were needed to create the big bang. They cannot replicate it either.
- Scientists cannot tell us how rain falling on rocks can make complex chemicals. They cannot replicate it either.
- Scientists cannot tell us how these complex chemicals formed life. They cannot replicate it either.
THESE ARE THE BUILDING BLOCKS FOR YOUR THEORY. Science cannot prove nor replicate any of this, so IT is faith-based and not fact-based!!!
Christianity is faith-based. I have no problem with that. However, so is evolution, but you seem to have a problem with that. Prove and replicate the above or stop lying to yourself and others and call evolution what it is (faith-based theory).
Sharon,
I wrote "ALL" meaning all options. I have no problem with my children being taught 25 different theories if that is what it takes. It only gives them a broader understanding of the beliefs of others and will allow them to discuss and empathize with different cultures of people. In other words, they will be educated.
6degrees,
Your argument is not comparing apples to apples. Churches are private institutions and therefore can teach whatever they want. Public schools are public institutions and are funded with tax dollars paid by every working American citizen.
My argument is a simple one:
Certain members of society believe that Creation and other "world beginning" concepts should not be taught in public schools while other members of society believe that evolution should not be taught exclusively while deliberately excluding other possibilities. We are all tax payers, so who is right? The only fair option I see is to teach all of the options and let the children and their parents decide which to believe at the end of the day.
OR, give parents the right to take their voucher that they pay for with their tax dollars to a school that will teach all options!!!
Personally, I would prefer the latter, because it will create competition and force our schools to get better and become more efficient. This would benefit all children!
If you are looking for historical and scientific evidence that supports Creation, then I would check out these sites:
icr dot org, genesispark dot org, dot answersingenesis dot org and omniology dot com
Thanks to those who treat other people with respect when posting!
And make sure you show her total respect, rather than humiliate her, like she totally deserves for her incredible lack of understanding of science.
In the time that you were writing your little religious fundamentalist load, 2 species went extinct.
In that same time, a new species evolved in a lab somewhere.
In that same time, over 1000 people died from HIV/AIDS, a virus that didn't exist when your little dead guy walked the earth. A virus that mutated (evolved) to infect humans, and one that evolves incredibly quickly to adjust to attempts to kill it off.
In that same time, the earth, sun and this galaxy moved a small distance from the center of the universe, just like every other galaxy that we are able to monitor and measure.
In that same time a few new fossils were discovered, adding credibility to evolution and further eroding the basis for your rant.
In the time it took to read your drivel, people lost over 1000 brain cells, a rate rapidly increased by your inability to understand anything that was written in this thread.
But if your disbelief in evolution is so strong, I am thinking you are a threat to your children. After all, you can't believe in medicines that have been developed on the exact basis of evolution. So the next time your child gets an evolved form of the flu, one that isn't curable by your empty prayers, one that isn't curable by bread mold, I suggest that someone around you report your abuse to the authorities, because that child will die without medicines created through evolutionary methods.
If someone, say you, were to hold a gun to my head and demand that I renounce my understanding of Darwinian evolution or be killed, I would ask you to recite the 6th commandment in the book of Exodus? I would ask you what the punishment for breaking that commandment would be. I would ask you if you were prepared to condemn your own eternal soul to hell if you pull that trigger. I would say to you that I am fundamentally incapable of accepting your particular myth as having any basis in fact and therefore you should go ahead and pull the trigger if you were prepared to face the consequences of that act. That is how I would respond to you. How would you respond to me?
Regarding your woeful ignorance of the scientific method, I hope that you are never called to serve on a jury trial involving forensic evidence but no eyewitnesses. If you require a person to witness something in order for you to believe it actually occurs, then you are clearly incapable of understanding the beauty and wonder that I possess for the natural world and the universe we occupy. It is as powerful a sensation as your belief in your particular supreme being, but has the advantage of being based in reality.
I didn't have to witness the null-energy fluctuation in the quantum vacuum that led to the Big Band 13.7 billion years ago. I didn't have to witness the proto-solar nebula that formed 4.6 billion years ago to know that is how our solar system came into existence. I didn't have to witness the initial chemical reactions that led to the formation of simply amino acids and subsequent formation of DNA to appreciate the specialness of those moments. Most of all, I don't need to default to the "god of the gaps" to understand that the scientific method has managed in only a few short centuries to convert human understanding of the natural world from being based on superstition and myth to being grounded in empirically demonstrable and verifiable fact.
The simple solution could be we all acknowledge that (1)science is a process used to discover and build theories which can be tested and re-tested while (2) faith is accepting "through a glass darkly" (Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, chaper 13) a system of beliefs that are not testable in the same way as science's theories.
How about we stop fighting and offer a variety of faith based creation stories to students in public schools as part of a literature, or eclectic religions of the world course, or history of the myths course. Joseph Campbell made a great case for the importance of these stories.
Faith and science do co-exist in the minds of many deeply religious and scientific folks. They are not the same and trying to "moouusshh" them together is pointless - unless you want to avoid time with your kids, grand kids or gardens. Unless you are obsessed with winning the argument and stuffing your ideology into everyone's time and space.
Further thoughts on this theme can be found in A SENSE OF WONDER by Rachael Carson, a wonderful, simple story of discovering with her grand child the - as Einstien put it - the magic wonder of the universe.
Trying to add creationism stories in a public school is a sure way to cause lots of issues, but good luck with that. I believe that literature classes should definitely review sections of the Bible, of the Koran and other religious texts - as literature.
But the problem? Fundamentalist Christians won't stop there. They are trying to remove all mention of evolution from science classes. If they don't get that they want the nonsense of Intelligent Design to be taught as an equivalent theory in biology classes.
There are multiple states currently debating laws that will remove evolution from the science classroom. How do you explain DNA-RNA copy w/ mutation in a biology class if you can't also explain how positive mutations "set" more than negative, giving the rise to adaptability and evolution of beneficial mutations? It is a core part of understanding the basis' for life.
So if you're referring to me as the "heat", you're right. I will never let the Christians get a foothold in the schools, they will not weaken the future generations of Americans that will be relied on to find and cure diseases, viruses, evolved pests and any other dangers that evolving species can throw at us.
And if the brainwashing that TW has undergone isn't enough to scare you, then I don't know what will.
Jay, you asked me alot of hard questions that can't be adequately responded to by emails alone. I acknowledge your hard feelings towards many religious people. Believe it or not, I have some of my own! As I tried to clarify before, not all theists are rigid fundamentalists. If we had the luxury of a real conversation on this topic, I believe we would find as many things to agree on as to disagree on. And what we disagree on - that's ok too. I can respect your position without having to agree with it all. Sometimes we learn more from the people we disagree with, rather than those we agree with.
TW is correct that it takes as much "faith" to believe in some scientific theories as it does some theological concepts. From a historical standpoint, there has been a long-standing dialogue between the schools of science and theology. Not all their representatives have become entrenched ememies. Some have, in fact, become collegial friends. The only thing I am seeking to "convert" people to here is greater mutual respect, even if when we disagree.
we aren't talking about some theories with little proof, we are talking about scientific theories, a much different beast. Scientific theories have the backing of experimental data, observed data and are falsifiable. Theories, on the other hand, are just ideas, working their way up in the world through scientific methods, in order to become a real Scientific Theory or maybe just another failed experiment.
There is absolutely no "faith" in the Theory of Evolution. None, zero, nada. The insistence that one could not know because one wasn't there is ridiculous on it's surface and insulting deeper down. One does not need to be at the birth of the galaxy to see the sun, right?
Some of the sciences are happy to work with people of faith. Not so with evolution. Evolution is the faith killer. Evolution causes people to doubt, it causes people to question their faith, their origins, to come up with other ideas. Evolution gives all of mankind a similar origin, but only if Adam and Eve were small ape-like mammals living in trees, waiting for that next evolutionary leap to make them separate from their cousins. Go back from there and out ancestors were all scurrying around the feet of dinosaurs, eating bugs and living in dens deep underground. Go back from there a little further and you find that we share an ancestor with dinosaurs. Back further and you find us crawling from the low salty seas. Even further and you find them basking in the glow of the sun through methane laden skies, small developing multicellular organisms with little locomotion and no predators. There are no plants at this point, not as we know them.
The human mind has issues dealing with the length of time we're talking about, it can't grasp that small changes and diversification with specification can lead to a walking mammal with the ability to intelligently think for himself and not rely solely on our ancient reptilian brain portions.
There is no faith in that. There are documents written all over the world, waiting for us to find them. From ancient bones to fossils to drilled cores through sedimentary layers. To ignore all of that information, to say that all of those fossils were created during some "great flood" is foolishness.
But worse than that, to ignore the evolution of species as it is happening right in front of us is dangerous. It threatens our development, our very existence. If we are unable to understand the science, if we rely on a religion based only in fear/rewards and encourages ignorance? We're going to die off. Our immediate evolution is to learn, to create, to use our brains to make our future generations greater than us. That won't happen if we're too busy praying for cures over the beds of the sick, watching them die and wondering why some random god won't take pity.
So no, there is no greater mutual respect for the Discovery Institute, the people seeking to undermine education for their own fearful pursuits and those seeking to make a buck off of it all. I've dealt with people much more educated than TW that seek to subvert our educational system, one perceived threat at a time. TW is just their little drone, their ignorant worker bee parroting nonsense. TW will never educate herself, she'll never have a capability to understand evolution, nor the importance. But people reading an unanswered post that sounds oh-so-reasonable and reinforces the primal urge to have belief in a god or gods? They're the ones I speak to, the ones that see how humiliating TW can be, and they stop and think for a second, instead of getting that little reinforcement of a silly belief system.
The fact is humans are essentially the same as they were when the bible was written thousands of years ago before the birth of Christ. They haven't evolved much except to live longer, and perhaps the intermarrying of various races will eventually make us all homogeneous.
I am concerned about the way schools are teaching only the extreme left view of everything, and I would like to see some balance.
As for bananas? They've been cultivated to produce seedless fruits by the hand of man, not your little god. The first "sweet" banana wasn't discovered until 1836, the cultivation of which started later in 1876 and the modified shape was also cultivated.
As for evolution having a political side? Thats your fault, not mine. Just because you can see nothing in shades between black and white isn't my problem.
I will answer your questions. First, if I was in the very unfortunate situation of someone holding a gun to my head and asking me to renounce my Christian faith or be killed, I would not do so. I would maintain my faith and hope for the best. Second, you completely ignored my question and made me the gun holder in the hypothetical question I posed to you using the word "someone." Anyway, I would never "threaten" your life for any reason!!! However, I will protect (self-defense) myself and my family from harm if needed while inflicting as little pain as possible in the process.
Lastly, I believe in things I don't witness as I have stated I am Christian. As a Christian, I have to believe in things I cannot see. I thought that was implied, but oh well.
The difference between us is that I am willing to admit that what I believe has a faith-based element. There is a whole bunch of evidence to support Christianity, but it is still a leap of faith to believe. Some of this information is at:
- icr dot org , answersingenesis dot org , omniology dot com , genesispark dot org , and many others.
One of the definitions of persecution - The subjecting of a race or group of people to cruel or unfair treatment, e.g. because of their ethnic origin or religious beliefs
I am very sorry to tell you, but you are the only one on this post persecuting people and you cannot seem to maintain a calm presence when discussing an issue. I think you need to read the book, The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz.
I don't know you or your life history, but I do know that every human being has the ability to maintain a calm and respectful presence in any situation, regardless of their life experiences.
You call me names, ridicule and judge me. I laugh out loud when I read them, because you are only displaying your own level of maturity and character when doing so. Someone once said, "The size of the man can best be determined by the size of the things that make him mad."
I am just as passionate about this issue as you, but I don't need to resort to slander and hostile comments when speaking to other human beings that I have never met simply because they do not agree with me.
But, let's not focus on that. Let's focus on the fact that you still have not answered my three questions.
You say everything you believe is 100% FACT and 100% PROVEN, yet science cannot explain (yet again):
The big bang, rain on rocks, complex chemicals, single cell organisms, etc. to present day is a pretty huge leap of faith.
Question #1 - Can science tell us where the particles came from that were needed to create the big bang? Can they replicate it?
Question #2 - Can science show us how rain falling on rocks can make complex chemicals? Can they replicate it?
Question #3 – Can science tell us how these complex chemicals formed life? Can they replicate it?
The beginning requirements needed for evolution are merely theories which Darwin himself openly admitted in his book, "The Origin of Species." Darwin also admitted that certain proofs would completely destroy his self regarded theory.
Evolution needs a starting point. Its starting point is a story that has not been scientifically proven or replicated, so you have to TRUST that it happened this way. You cannot be sure that it happened this way, so you have to have FAITH that it happened this way.
Hence, evolution requires an element of faith. You can disagree with that, but it doesn't make it any less true.
For information and scientific facts that support Creation and a young earth, go to the following sites:
- icr dot org , answersingenesis dot org , omniology dot com , genesispark dot org , and many others.
Furthermore, I believe in evolution (micro-evolution). Evolution is nothing but change over time. I believe that genetic variations have happened within each "kind." However, I do not believe we evolved from complex chemicals millions and/or billions of years ago.
I know that there are Christians out there who are bible beaters and do things they shouldn't, but it would be irresponsible to make generalizations about all Christians based on these individuals.
Certain people posting feel obligated to respond to any comment that doesn't fit their own reality and have no problem name calling and "humiliating" anyone who does not agree with them. These people believe in evolution, but I certainly will not use my experiences with them to make generalizations about all people who believe in evolution. That would be ridiculous and irresponsible on my part.
Again, my point is simple:
I am not asking to have evolution removed from schools. I want my children to learn about it. I just don't want them to be offered evolution as the only option and be told they are stupid and simple if they believe in God rather than evolution.
Certain members of society believe that ONLY evolution should be taught in schools.
Certain member of society believe that ONLY Creation should be taught in schools.
Other members of society believe that ALL options should be taught in schools (I am here).
We are all tax payers, so who is right? The only fair option I see is to teach all of the options and let the children and their parents decide which to believe at the end of the day.
OR, give parents the right to take their voucher that they pay for with their tax dollars to a school that will teach all options!!!
Personally, I would prefer the latter, because it will create competition and force our schools to get better and become more efficient.
This approach would benefit all children and help them better understand and empathize with other human beings who may have different beliefs that they encounter during their walk through life!
And my final note to you, TW, try to understand the Establishment Clause, otherwise you have a long period of frustration ahead of you.
You have made some interesting points. I still respectfully disagree with you that science and faith have to be completely antithetical to each other. It is possible for one to have a 'rational' faith. The 'faith' I employ does not depend on a religion based on fear/rewards or one that encourages ignorance.
Most of the people I have known claiming to be Christians are fair, humble and reasonable. Of course there are some exceptions, but isn't this also true with those claiming to be agnostics or atheists?
Evolutionary theories only partially explain the human condition. We are more complex than just the biological template housing our self-awareness.
Where is the soul, Dave? How old is the earth, Dave?
Do you believe that your human mind can comprehend the incredible amount of change that mutations can incorporate in billions of years and dismiss them so casually?
And I'm not saying that all of science and faith are antithetical to each other, but biology and evolution are total faith killers.
I wouldn't waste my time arguing points with someone who makes generalizations about an entire group of people based on expierences with only some. Unless a person can state unequivocally that they have met every Christian on the face of the earth, then their claims speak leaps and bounds about their character.
I wonder if the people posting these comments think themselves humble, fair and reasonable? If they do, perhaps they should re-read their posts.
I am quite sure that both of us could point to certain members of our past history and current society that were corrupted by evolution. Maybe the Columbine boys, for instance. They shot their peers on Hitler's birthday, spoke German to each other and wore a T-Shirt reading "Natural Selection." They asked their classmates if they believed in God and if they said yes, they shot them. And, they killed themselves at the end of it to avoid any responsibility for their actions. After all, if there is no God, then laws mean nothing if you simply kill yourself after commiting terrible crimes. So, I guess anyone who shares any ideas that they did are all the same, right?
I guess some people on this earth have found a book of infallible truths that discusses every topic known to man. Therefore, they can read from this book and look down on the rest of us as ignorant fools, because they KNOW the truth and we don't.
It is these "humiliaters" who want to make our society better, by treating others with disrespect and contempt. I wonder if they will ever realize their own hypocrisy?
Yeah, no hypocrisy there. Mote, eye, log, shut up
I enjoy your unique ability to always take the focus off of yourself and pass the buck. Do you work in corporate America by chance? Now please, show me in one post I have written where I state anything matter of factly with no room for question.
Then, re-read your posts with the same analytical skills you use with everyone else and sincerely think about your conclusions.
I use words like guess, seem, might, possibility, etc. in my posts and state my views as just that, my views. I do not state that I KNOW EVERYTHING. I mostly ask questions and attempt to raise questions to create positive discussion.
I believe the Bible is divinely inspired, but I do not state nor know anyone who would state that it discusses every topic known to man. So, your attempted attack is irrelevant and way off point once again.
You make statements matter of factly and rarely answer any questions, you just attack anyone who asks them if they differ from your views.
I have been told numerous times that evolutionists search for the truth and that evolutionist scientists go into everything with an open mind in search of the truth and follow it wherever it leads them.
In your case, you sure do seem to act as if you know the answer before you even begin the experiment.
How old is the world? Probably millions, possibly billions of years old. Does it really matter? What matters more is that we are here now and we are self-aware! My faith does not depend on a strict time line concerning how we came into existence. What matters more is that we exist & we yearn to know WHY we are here NOW. Some scientific theories can help us, but not completely. That is why we need some elements of faith in this life. There will always be some things that can't be fully explained. It's not niave or ignorant to acknowledge this. Strict Darwinism or Creationism, in and of themselves, can't answer all our questions. Nor should we elevate them to the point of thinking they can.
>>>>>>
What I believe is that God created the universe, and that the 6 days in the Bible may not be 6 days as we understand it. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth, that is fundamentally true. Now whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible, that I don't presume to know. But one last point--I do believe in evolution. I don't think that is incompatible with Christian faith. Just as I don't think science generally is incompatible with Christian faith. There are those who suggest that if you have a scientific bent of mind, then somehow you should reject religion. And I fundamentally disagree with that. In fact, the more I learn about the world, the more I know about science, the more I'm amazed about the mystery of this planet and this universe. And it strengthens my faith as opposed to weakens it.
Source: 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
How do you reconcile your support for Obama when he finds a peaceful coexistence between science and religion in his own life, which seems to be such an anathema to you?
And no, you didn't clarify it, but you can keep thinking you did if it makes you happy.
There are tons of people in America that feel that any mention or teaching of evolution is an indirect (and some feel it is a direct) attack on religion. So who will make the choice of what will be taught? Your comment above makes it appear that you support those that want to remove evolution from the classroom.
What should a teacher in a high school biology class do when a student asks about common descent? What about natural selection? Should the teacher never mention Darwin or the history of evolution?
From the standpoint of finite human reasoning, I acknowledge the co-existence of science & faith is a paradox. Cosmologically speaking, the apparent randomness of life on this planet is a paradox too. Yet here we are. Religion or Science, in complete isolation, cannot explain away all the mysteries of our existence. From the astronomic observational viewpoint, binocular viewing gives superior depth perception instead of monocular viewing. Here's to our search for greater knowledge with both eyes wide open!
Take care, it is always a challenge in crossing swords with you. Now let's move on.