Update: What Happens in Texas Doesn’t Stay In Texas

As a high school student, I feel a sense of pride in history class when I hear how biased and close minded we used to be, and seeing how far we have come. And then I read things like this. Why should anybody be opposed to teaching children the truth, the whole truth, and all sides of the truth? One important thing many students still don't get: there are holes in science. We can't just cover them up. Kudos to Texas for allowing students to further enlighten their viewpoints.

OH NO! They aren't going to teach children to question and probe the veracity of what their teachers teach!? Children will become stoopid if they don't accept blindly absolutely everything their teachers say. They'll become supersticious and crazy because only crazy people question the status quo. NOOOOOOO!

Folks, there is only one side to every issue especially in science. We shouldn't let anyone think any differently on that.

I'm proud of the Texas Board of Education, they are making a very courageous move. I just hope they stand up and support their decision, and not fold into pressure. Science in it's nature should be critical, self critical, and to blindly accept something as truth is not scientific. The THEORY of evolution is just that, a THEORY! And to be taught in schools as fact, I believe, goes against every scientific pricipal.

The Republicans that voted for the creationism nonsense are driving this country to intellectual bankruptcy.

Gravity is just a theory. The truth is, the Earth sucks (at least down in Texas it does)

Evolution is more than just a theory. It is a legitimate scientific paradigm, untestable assumptions and all, and that's it's day job. It pulls double duty as a dogma for all the "rationally" minded who are unquestioningly faithful who are steadfast against the scientific "heretics."

Chuck and Bob, what is it wrong to see both sides of the issue? Talk about being blind. I mean you can not prove that a god or "intelligent design" doesn't exist. I can't prove that he/she/it does. You can't prove that we "evolved" from just one organism. Not even Richard Dawkins could do that, so you really want to tell me you can? The "science" is not solved on this, so children should not be taught that there is only one way, they should be taught both and be given the choice to make up their own mind. Science is about objections, and should always be questioned. That is not to say that it is all wrong, because most of it is right. But you can't dismiss something that you can't disprove.

Chuck: It is the Law of Gravity, not the Theory of Gravity. A scientific law is something that will happen every time it is observed.

What Texas has done has helped to prove the theory of Evolution. With more people critical of it, more research will be done. Also it will give children a chance to make their own decisions on whether or not see it as a possibility for how we came into existence.

Another thing to remember is that to win an argument you have to know both sides; no defense attorney walks into a courtroom without knowing what the prosecutor plans on doing.

"Seriously" Science is not about "faith." Faith is something you believe in spite of evidence to the contrary. Science is all about science. If there was evidence to disprove evolution, then it would no longer be valid. To date, no such evidence has been found. Keep trying, though.

dazelmer, the "law" of gravity says that if you drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. It is Gravitational "Theory" that explains why this happens.

"seriously," are you asking evolutionists to prove that God does not exist?

The ironic thing about it all is that atheists cannot prove there is no God nor disprove creationism, & while Christians do have proof of God's existence it is impossible to prove it to unbelievers, because to know & experience God first requires a step of faith. Once this occurs, a person experiences something called new birth, where their innermost being is made alive. This is called the spirit & this is the "organ" one must have & utilize to know & experience God. This is not difficult for a Christian to do but it is impossible for an atheist to do.

Therefore, though a Christian has absolute proof within his spirit, he cannot show or demonstrate this proof to the unbeliever because he does not possess the organ necessary for spiritual sight. All true believers have had an experience with God to which they will profess was "out of this world" real, meaning they had an experience with God that was more real than our normal world experiences but which they cannot adequately relate or explain to others. What's more, you can also talk to one who is a "spiritist", not believing in & acknowledging God in truth, but who can also tell of other worldly experiences in the spirit realm. Unfortunately, they are dabbling with the evil side of that dimension.

There is a consciousness within all people of the reality & existence of God to which all must & do respond. All people fall into 3 categories ; either they believe in the one true God, or they choose to believe in a man made-up god or god likeness, or they spend their lives trying to prove to themselves & others there is no God. The irony is that all 3 require faith !

The ironic thing about it all is that atheists cannot prove there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster nor disprove pastafarism, & while Pastafarians do have proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence it is impossible to prove it to unbelievers, because to know & experience the Flying Spaghetti Monster first requires a step of faith. Once this occurs, a person experiences something called new birth, where their innermost being is made alive. This is called the spirit & this is the "pasta" one must have & utilize to know & experience the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is not difficult for a Pastafarian to do but it is impossible for an atheist to do.
Therefore, though a Pastafarian has absolute proof within his spirit, he cannot show or demonstrate this proof to the unbeliever because he does not possess the pasta necessary for spiritual sight. All true believers have had an experience with the Flying Spaghetti Monster to which they will profess was "out of this world" real, meaning they had an experience with the Flying Spaghetti Monster that was more real than our normal world experiences but which they cannot adequately relate or explain to others. What's more, you can also talk to one who is a "spiritist", not believing in & acknowledging the Flying Spaghetti Monster in truth, but who can also tell of other worldly experiences in the spirit realm. Unfortunately, they are dabbling with the evil side of that dimension.
There is a consciousness within all people of the reality & existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to which all must & do respond. All people fall into 3 categories ; either they believe in the the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or they choose to believe in a man made-up god or god likeness, or they spend their lives trying to prove to themselves & others there is no the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The irony is that all 3 require faith !

Chuck and Bob, what is it wrong to see both sides of the issue? Talk about being blind. I mean you can not prove that a the Flying Spaghetti Monster or "Pastafarism" doesn't exist. I can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does. You can't prove that we "evolved" from just one organism. Not even Richard Dawkins could do that, so you really want to tell me you can? The "science" is not solved on this, so children should not be taught that there is only one way, they should be taught both Pastafarism and Evolution and be given the choice to make up their own mind. Science is about objections, and should always be questioned. That is not to say that it is all wrong, because most of it is right. But you can't dismiss something that you can't disprove.

@ criticalscience

Almost everything in your comment is completely wrong. The board did not make a courageous move and they already folded under the pressure by not taking a hard stance. You don't think that evolution has faced its fair share of review? You make it seem like one crazy man demanded that nobody else review his claims and that they be published word for word in Texas textbooks. Do you know how many scientists have studied evolution?

You make it seem like your acutely aware of "every scientific principal" which you clearly are not because first of all it is "principle" and second your understanding of "scientific theory" is not only incorrect but also typical of Christian rhetoric. 100% correct or not, evolution should be taught in science class because IT IS SCIENCE. Creationism should not be taught in science class because IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

Finally in case you are keeping track, when religious authorities oppose scientific authorities, the religious authorities are ALWAYS WRONG. Are you also advocating that we teach that the earth is the center of the universe or that condoms cause AIDS? I didn't think so.

Longlivethepirate,

It is truly sad, but you typify the terrible state to which our country has fallen in terms of morals & reverence for God. You seem to revel & glory in your shame, your irreverence for God & Christians. This once was a great nation because it had a firm belief in & reverence for God.

There are still many Christians, but most have their heads in the sand & simply let the ungodly make all the decisions in government & society to turn everything right & holy into a pig's pen. Obama is the result of the ungodly, immoral climate of today's America & he's doing his very best to bring the country to it's ultimate demise.

Even more shameful then the ungodly however, is you Christians who do NOTHING. You do not speak up or take a stand. This brings to mind the old sayings that "if you do not take a stand for something, you'll fall for anything" & "all that is required for evil (wrong) to triumph, is for good men to do nothing". It seems apathy & complacency, along with the unbridled pursuit of self seeking pleasures are the undoing of this once great God-fearing nation.

The state of this country, both morally & financially is what it is because Christians do NOTHING

Chuck_Darwin,

I find your definition of faith overly convenient for your argument.

“Faith is something you believe in spite of evidence to the contrary.”

The way in which you have defined it clearly shows that you’ve already assumed what you are trying to prove, that any breed of creationism is not science. And again, when you define science:

“Science is all about science.”

Your assumptions are still evidently your conclusions….not to mention you are defining science circularly. And that’s bad form.

But back on the issue of faith. Science is founded on faith. I say this because science is founded on mathematics and mathematics is founded on faith. Take for instance one of the basic tenants of Euclidean geometry, “Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another”. This is not a provable statement. But it is taken by most anyone to be true, it is taken on faith. It is what you would call an axiom.

Any logical system is built up from a set of axioms, a set of statements taken on faith. So as a result everything proven by those axioms is taken on the same faith. If one of those axioms is false, then unless a given statement can be proven w/o that particular axiom, then it’s truthfulness ought to be called into question.

Now the example axiom I gave is fairly simple, and I doubt too many people would disagree with it. However, not all axioms are so well accepted. Take this one for example

“That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles [in sum], the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than two right angles.”

Most everything you know from high school geometry is based on this axiom. However it can be completely tossed out and replaced and perfectly consistent geometries formed (check out spherical or hyperbolic geometry).

And here is my main point. Consistency! You cannot prove axioms, they are two basic. They must be taken on faith. If you want to throw down some logical system you must show that its set of initial assumptions (it’s axioms) lead to contradictions. Let me emphasize this, that the axioms which build up that particular system lead to contradictions. You cannot have the axioms of your own choosing from your own system try to produce contradictions in another system, you must prove the contradictions using the other guy’s building blocks alone.
If both of you have used logic correctly but started with different assumptions then obviously you will disagree, so you must go back and check to see if those initial assumptions are consistent.

Because of this, it is clear, that science is not about proving things to be true, but proving things to be false. If two scientists start with two differing sets of axioms, and build up hypotheses, use those hypotheses to make predictions, and test those predictions against observation, and both check out. Well then, you don’t have reason to take the one scientists scientific model over the other. You need to find a contradiction, so further predictions will be made, and further test to check the models out.

On this particular issue, I think you are really hard pressed to equate science and evolution. Having money and political power does not make you right. Back in Copernicus’ day the scientific establishment had a lot of money and power, and were pushing the ideas of Ptolemy like it was the gospel. Contrary to popular belief Copernicus wasn’t fighting against doctrines in the Bible, he was a man of faith himself. He was fighting against a scientific idea what was accepted as dogma by the current political powers who just happened to be the church. The church would excommunicate people who questioned it on anything (even if it wasn’t about doctrine) because that’s what people w/ political power do. Fast forward to our day, Darwinists now have political power, and by golly look what happens to people who even hint at questioning their doctrines. They get black listed from being able to even be peer reviewed. Lets be honest, if you had a lot of grant money riding on an issue you are trying to push, would you really let someone get through the peer review process who was showing a consistent model which contradicted your own? Careful how you answer that, remember all your grant money could be given to that guy if you let his paper get published.

As a christian and a scientifically-minded person, I've read some things here that are entirely baffling to me. In science there are no 'facts', or 'truths', there are only theories, which are very solidified by years of testing, and continue to be tested and verified. As for the people claiming that there is a law of gravitation, i'm sorry but that is incorrect, it is called the theory of gravitation, if you don't believe me look it up. The reason the word theory is used, is because science always keeps an open-minded approach to its discoveries, it often loves to be proven wrong, because then we have to learn new ways of thinking. The theory of evolution has helped scientists within the field of biology in almost every way, curing diseases, agriculture development, animal diseases, everything. If people can look past the religious aspect for a moment, and see that this theory assists and helps the world in a practical way, then hopefully we can all be more open-minded to it. In my science classes back when I was in school this was not a debate, this whole argument has only stirred up within the past few years, for a reason I wish I knew. There are limits to what science can know, and Christianity fills those gaps for me, but not for the field of biology.

I hate that this argument is always so two-sided. I'm a christian who believes that evolution was God's way of creating man. Mind-blowing I know.

I can not tell people what to believe and what not to believe, that is thier choice. However, the bottom line of this issue is that, as bagpipes100 stated, the axioms of the two "sides" are different. That can not be argued. What can be argued AND should be brought to light is that the creationists are trying to force people to learn thier "theory" in the context of science, with ITS axioms. Creationism is a religious principle based on religious axioms. It should be taught in the context of religion.
Though im not sure any exist, is it God? The bible isn't basic enough...

Be careful how far you slip into philosophy. You can get into arguemnts about the truth of reality...proving if a table exists in our minds or in reality... you have a valid argument, but the core difference between religion and science is the way it is pursued. There is no systematic approach to proving any religious principle the entire "system" is based on faith. The core of science is based on "axioms" in order to systematically validate or, in most cases, disprove a theory. This system is the scientific method.

So if the creationists want creationism to be taught in science class then they will have to be willing to submit thier "theory" to the same machinations that every other scientific theory has to be processed through. If it passes, then great we have another theory regarding how species developed into thier current states. Im willing to bet though, that creationists are not willing to let thier theory be tested within the confines of science.

These same circumstances would apply if us "scientist" were to try to have evolution be incorporated into religion. It would have to pass the acceptance criteria that is set forth by that religion.

Rebuttals:

Holyman,
This country was founded by very religious men who where essentially excommuncated from the brittish empire because their religious beliefs didnt align with that of the monarchy. As a result this country was found upon the SEPARATION of church and state. I repeat, THEY were very religious but did not want the government they founded to be. By the way, who is to say yours is the "one true god"? Are you admitting that others exist?

LongLivethePirate,

Elequent Response!!

Let's just forget for a moment the fact that so many other sciences (archealogy, biology(DNA), paleontology, etc, etc, etc) are so intertwined with evolution, calling it still a "theory" anymore is akin to still saying the earth is flat or the sun orbits the earth. Makes you wonder why states don't set minimal educational standards to become a board member.

It's perfectly simple; it's science if you show testable evidence or proof. If you don't have that it's Belief. ID, Creationism, do not show testable proof. Screaming "it's too complex!" while running around a room flapping your arms is not proof, it's panic. Quietly saying it's too complex is just being unwilling or incapable of observing evidence. ID or Creationism offer no testable evidence or proof, there is nothing to present in a science class.

Sure evolution may leave some questions unanswered but that is the same for just about any theory.

Students should learn to be skeptical but pointing out weaknesses is not helping them be skeptical. Pointing out unanswered questions can be helpful.

I was a Christian for many years, a hardcore one too. I would pray, read the Bible, etc etc. Well, one day after reading some science books I asked myself the simple question "Why should I believe anything the Bible says?" I knew the only reason why I believed it was because I was brought up to do so. And I realized I had no real reason to believe it. God never appeared to me and told me that he wrote the Bible.
THis is the case for every religion. THe only reason you believe in the holy book is because someone (usually your parents) tells you it's holy and from God.

Ask yourselves these questions. Be rational, logical, reasonable, for a moment. If God exists, why would he expect any rational person to just believe some book was written by him just because someone else told you so?
Faith in God is one thing, but faith in a book that you think God wrote just because someone tells you he wrote it or because the book itself says so, that's just ridiculous.

And nonbelievers can be better models of Christ (moral, kind, caring, willing to sacrifice) than many Christians.

But :leavingTexas:, evolution offers no testable proof or evidence either. That is the problem.

(1) Defeating Creationism, ID, Pastafarianism, or any other theory is just a straw man. Proving that we should not teach any one option other than evolution does not mean that evolution should be taught.

(2) Evolutions level of acceptance among scientist, fields of science, or aught else is in no way proof of evolution. This is a red herring: science has a long history of majority incorrectness on major issues (ie flat cosmo-centric earth).

(3) Scientific (Natural) Laws (ie the Law of Gravity, the Laws of Motion, or the Laws of Thermodynamics) are infinately observable and repeatable. Theories try to explain why Natural Laws work the way they do. Thus, the Theory of Gravity can be called into question, the Law of Gravity is not. Evolution attempts to explain what we could term a natural law: "There are lots of different critters on Earth and they got some things in common."

(4) Evolution assumes, on faith, a closed Earth system. If super-intellegent aliens seeded life, or wrote it in the DNA outright, it is not evolution (at least on earth) but ID. Even the "great" (mediocre and weasel-like) Dawkins has admitted that is a possiblity, though he promptly states, again by faith, that the aliens would have to come from a planet fueled by evolution. I say by faith, since he surely has not observed any alien planets lately.

(5) Evolution has not one shred of evidence. Natural selection has evidence and can be experimented. Evolution cannot, but claims "millions and millions of years." A claim equally as silly of Id's "its too complex!" Both are antho-centric hubris as it assumes that time too long for a human to fathom can work miracles and that complexity to great for a human to fathom must be supernatural.

(6) Evolution is not testable. Even if you could show that evolution did work (an experiment that would require no human interferience for millions of years to complete), it still would not prove that it DID happen, only that it could or does. You cannot show change over time in a static fossil. I can bury a chiuahua on top of a terrier on top of a lab on top of a husky on top of a wolf, but that doesn't make the fossil record show evolution. Life is sufficiently abundant that similarities do not necessitate relation (evolution grants this fact through parrellelism.

(7) What all this means is that Evolution is not closed science. It is a fine theory, an attractive theory, and a logical theory, but it is not closed science. Teaching theories in the classroom is perfectly acceptable, so long as they are being taught honestly as theories and not as scientific fact. Teaching that theories, all theories, can be questioned, is perfectly acceptable for any science textbook, as that is what science does: question theories and hypothesi.

To everyone who insists that the THEORY of Evolution is "just that, a theory" thank you for once again proving that the education system has failed the masses in yet another way.

Please review the Scientific definition of what a Theory is before you ASSUME that it is the same definition as used by pop-culture......

Until someone comes up with a credible alternative to Evolution, there have been NO ALTERNATIVES presented for it....Sorry but Creationism is a negative argument, not a sustainable scientific theory.....There is absolutely zero way to scientifically support creationism. Faith is not science people.

Want your kids to learn about your BELIEF that Man arose through Creationism - teach it yourself at home - keep it away from my kids. And keep your Christianity out of our schools....

Oakspar wrote: "...1) Defeating Creationism, ID, Pastafarianism, or any other theory is just a straw man. Proving that we should not teach any one option other than evolution does not mean that evolution should be taught..."

Wrong, Scientists have dozens of well-documented cases where 'missing-links' in the recovered fossil records were very accurately predicted and then ultimately found in the field.

"...Evolutions level of acceptance among scientist, fields of science, or aught else is in no way proof of evolution. This is a red herring: science has a long history of majority incorrectness on major issues (ie flat cosmo-centric earth)..."

And not only has Evolution conclusively proven every alternaitve explanation as less-valid, scientific breakthroughs since Darwins initial theory have FURTHER SUPPORTED CREATIONISM - DNA anyone? The missing genome between Humans and our closest Simian cousins?

"...Evolution has not one shred of evidence. Natural selection has evidence and can be experimented. Evolution cannot, but claims "millions and millions of years." A claim equally as silly of Id's "its too complex!" Both are antho-centric hubris as it assumes that time too long for a human to fathom can work miracles and that complexity to great for a human to fathom must be supernatural..."

Wait - Natural selection has proof, but evolution doesn't??? they are synonyms for the same process.....

...Evolution is not testable. Even if you could show that evolution did work (an experiment that would require no human interferience for millions of years to complete), it still would not prove that it DID happen, only that it could or does. You cannot show change over time in a static fossil. I can bury a chiuahua on top of a terrier on top of a lab on top of a husky on top of a wolf, but that doesn't make the fossil record show evolution. Life is sufficiently abundant that similarities do not necessitate relation (evolution grants this fact through parrellelism...

Drug-resistant bacteria, multiple strains of Flu virus, or other contagious diseases, Cockroach-developed immunities to pesticides due to extremely short life-spans....

Evolution is all around you - you speak well, but are showing little in the way of familiarity with Evolution friend.

Chuck,

There is no evidence that evoloution exists either. Actually every time your kind brings something up, it gets shot down or disproved. Sounds like you guys have a lot of work as well. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere to prove micro evoloution, only some pictures and fairy tales to suggest evoloution on the macro scale. Good luck with your pictures and failed experiments.

Chuck,

There is no evidence that evoloution exists either. Actually every time your kind brings something up, it gets shot down or disproved. Sounds like you guys have a lot of work as well. There is absolutely no evidence anywhere to prove micro evoloution, only some pictures and fairy tales to suggest evoloution on the macro scale. Good luck with your pictures and failed experiments.

"Because Texas is the largest textbook market in the nation..." How do people fall for this boastful Texan B.S.? Texas isn't close to being the most populous state in the union.

____________________

The foundation of morality is to have done, once and for all, with lying.
- Thomas Henry Huxley

I have a watch. It has been in my family for generations, and no one knows where it came from. I choose to believe someone made it. Other people, however, say that it started as raw materials millions of years ago, back when the dinosaurs lived. Their theory is that the dinosaur’s feet crunched the metals into shapes, (various gears and mechanics,) over millions and millions of years. Then one day, the randomly assorted pieces came together through a gust of wind, in just the right configuration, into a watch, which has been with us to this present day. Yeah, makes perfect sense.

My point here is that people should not water down the opponent’s argument in an attempt to make them look stupid. “Never throw mud. You might miss and you’ll have dirty hands.”

I don't have a problem with alternatives to evolution being taught, as long as they are given the same analysis of strengths and weaknesses that evolution is.

For example, if a 'fact' is shown to weigh against evolution, then 'facts' that weigh against creationism should be shown as evidence that creationism is false. I guess the religious would then complain about atheism being taught in schools.

On another note, I like the idea that only Christians have evidence of God. It's a nice argument but what about the 'evidence' that other religions have in their hearts? It is logical to conclude that 'evidence' of a particular God being the 'one' is then false and that this internal evidence is a just a chemical malfunction of an overstressed brain.

u00ac06:

I think you need to give a well defined description of what religion is. As it stands it appears that you are using the term as a slight of hand maneuver to make distinctions where there are none.

I’m not sure what your academic background is. But I can tell you that I have been, and am still a student of both creationism and evolution. The consistency of each must be considered by itself, and without importing assumptions from the other. From what you write, you clearly have a bias toward evolution, and bring in many assumptions from it when ever you begin to reason about creationism.

The scientific method is not unique to the evolutionists. Nor is the complement of the scientific method within the whole axiomatic set used by the evolutionists the null set.
The scientific method is held in common by both camps (possibly many more). But each also hold to many other axioms, all taken by faith. So until you can show contradictions formed solely from the set of axioms of one group or the other. Neither can be held to as having the scientific high ground. You request that creationism be submitted to the test of science. I say, let it be so. But let it be submitted to science, and not science with the added axioms of the evolutionists, and let evolution be put to the same test and may everyone benefit from what we learn.

I do not believe there is a danger of slipping to far into philosophy here. We all must believe in the existence of truth, and absolute truth, or else there would be very little motivation to study science at all. So there should be little danger of going towards relativism. Start with axioms, build up a system, and use the scientific method to compare to observation. This is how we know things from science.

LongLivethePirate:

Satire can be an effective tool for exposing fallacies or ignorance in someone’s thinking. But be careful not to confuse it with arrogant mockery, which is no substitute for a well reasoned argument. (not that I haven’t been guilty of the same, or will never be guilty of it again….it’s sometimes is just fun….though worthless for any scientific progress).

Everyone:

Evolution is a theory, which means it was logically reasoned from a set of axioms. Gravity is the same. However, the axioms used to form the theory of gravity are one one and the same as the ones used to form the theory of evolution. So gravity being true does not imply evolution is true. To say otherwise is poor reasoning.

Oakspar77777:

Good point bringing up that evolution assumes a closed system, and that the past is not observable. Many things can be inferred from the past, but what you infer from the observing products of the past (in the present) is dictated by the scientific model you have chosen to look through at that time.

Quote "I have a watch. It has been in my family for generations, and no one knows where it came from. I choose to believe someone made it. Other people, however, say that it started as raw materials millions of years ago, back when the dinosaurs lived. Their theory is that the dinosaur’s feet crunched the metals into shapes, (various gears and mechanics,) over millions and millions of years. Then one day, the randomly assorted pieces came together through a gust of wind, in just the right configuration, into a watch, which has been with us to this present day. Yeah, makes perfect sense."

Actually, if watches reproduced and had been reproducing for millions of years, if might make sense that you watch was a bit different from the older watches. Why not state the complete analogy?

As a Y.E.C., I can admit that my origins views are strongly affected by my religious views.
I had a few various comments to make.
-I am grateful to evolutionists who are honest enough to admit that their atheism is the root cause of their belief on origins.
-I am also grateful for the humor of the F.S.M. myth. Where a logical argument is not working, throw some sarcastic humor in the mix.
-I agree that there is a political persecution of those who refuse to ascribe to the current paradigm. Going against the flow does mean that you are wrong.
-Evolution has been influential in describing some current issues such as bacterial resistance. That means that there is some truth in the theory. It does not mean that the theory is without fault.
-This banter about theory, law, and hypothesis is a smokescreen to hide the real issues. Get over the semantics.
-My favorite thing on here:
“What all this means is that Evolution is not closed science. It is a fine theory, an attractive theory, and a logical theory, but it is not closed science.”

Battleshield:

“Evolution is all around you - you speak well, but are showing little in the way of familiarity with Evolution friend.”

Be careful not to be guilty of the same thing.

“Wait - Natural selection has proof, but evolution doesn't??? they are synonyms for the same process.....”

They are only synonyms when you are an evolutionists. Natural selection is a force working in nature, this is accepted by many creationist working in research. However, Evolution is understood to be natural selection being the only means by which life originated and has come to be as it is. A creationists would argue that since creation, natural selection has been a force altering the species of plants, animals, etc which where originally created. This is why the whole issue of irreducible complexity gets its start. Minor changes may be observable, but major changes have not been observed.

The only thing you have shown here is that when you start with a different set of axioms, you get come up with different conclusions. You have not proven or disproven anything with which you have disagreed with.

Quote: "-I am grateful to evolutionists who are honest enough to admit that their atheism is the root cause of their belief on origins."

This is what disturbs me, this idea that if you believe in evolution, you are an atheist. I was raised on both. I never had any conflict between the two.

I hate that our country is moving in the direction of religious persecution. Not to mention that every religious nut has been brainwashed to believe that any 'liberal' idea is bad. Note, before anyone objects, that there are plenty of religious people who are not nuts, (me being one of them I hope). When GB got elected, a friend stated that we should be scared because 'the only reason you hire a cowboy is to lead cows to the slaughter so that other people make money.'

In a nutshell, the new gop has elevated ignorance to the level of righteousness and made good money for his friends doing it.

To freddyward;

Both sides have a reasonable argument. My point was that with all this J. Springer going on we won't ever get this resolved. As for what you said, you are correct. Evolution is true the way you said it. I am Christian and absolutely agree that species change over time. If anyone wants proof look at all the different breeds of dogs. But, saying that all life came from a single common ancestor that formed from an inorganic world requires to much faith for me.

To Evolutionist;

If any Evolutionist can explain how life came from non-life (with proof) please tell me. I know there was that one experiment that created amino acids, but they were the wrong kind. Look it up.

PS If any creationist can disprove Evolution within a species tell me. I love being informed.

Chuck that is exactly what I am asking. To prove god doesn't exist you first have to prove who or what god is in order to disprove that it/he doesn't exist. Go ahead, I'll be awaiting your response.

Really Chuck, what full proof evidence is there that we came from one single organism? I am not saying that we haven't evolved in anyway. But there has yet to be any proof that we came from one single organism. But again, feel free to prove me wrong.

Chuck funny you should bring up this "it is not science subject", because I have here the definition of social science:the branch of science that studies society and the relationships of individual within a society.
Would this really not be science? If you can't win the right way, then just make stuff up, right? And before I continue I will have you know that I am a libertarian, boarder line anarchist. That being said, the mixture of politicians in this country have killed. But you blame it all on the stupid elephants, when really BOTH parties are to blame. But you probably love what the Dims(yes that is how I meant it to be spelled) doing with their newfound power. Oh, and I am sure you believe that we are causing global warming too.

Quote:
I can not tell people what to believe and what not to believe, that is thier choice. However, the bottom line of this issue is that, as bagpipes100 stated, the axioms of the two "sides" are different. That can not be argued. What can be argued AND should be brought to light is that the creationists are trying to force people to learn thier "theory" in the context of science, with ITS axioms. Creationism is a religious principle based on religious axioms. It should be taught in the context of religion.
Though im not sure any exist, is it God? The bible isn't basic enough...
Be careful how far you slip into philosophy. You can get into arguemnts about the truth of reality...proving if a table exists in our minds or in reality... you have a valid argument, but the core difference between religion and science is the way it is pursued. There is no systematic approach to proving any religious principle the entire "system" is based on faith. The core of science is based on "axioms" in order to systematically validate or, in most cases, disprove a theory. This system is the scientific method.
So if the creationists want creationism to be taught in science class then they will have to be willing to submit thier "theory" to the same machinations that every other scientific theory has to be processed through. If it passes, then great we have another theory regarding how species developed into thier current states. Im willing to bet though, that creationists are not willing to let thier theory be tested within the confines of science.
These same circumstances would apply if us "scientist" were to try to have evolution be incorporated into religion. It would have to pass the acceptance criteria that is set forth by that religion.
Rebuttals:
Holyman,
This country was founded by very religious men who where essentially excommuncated from the brittish empire because their religious beliefs didnt align with that of the monarchy. As a result this country was found upon the SEPARATION of church and state. I repeat, THEY were very religious but did not want the government they founded to be. By the way, who is to say yours is the "one true god"? Are you admitting that others exist?
LongLivethePirate,
Elequent Response!!

---------------------------------------------------

But it is still a theory. So it should be taught. You can't teach one theory without the other, and in someways they go together. Intelligent design could be achieved through evolution. The only thing you would be adding is that you believe a higher power was in charge of it all.

Battle:
To everyone who insists that the THEORY of Evolution is "just that, a theory" thank you for once again proving that the education system has failed the masses in yet another way.
Please review the Scientific definition of what a Theory is before you ASSUME that it is the same definition as used by pop-culture......
Until someone comes up with a credible alternative to Evolution, there have been NO ALTERNATIVES presented for it....Sorry but Creationism is a negative argument, not a sustainable scientific theory.....There is absolutely zero way to scientifically support creationism. Faith is not science people.
Want your kids to learn about your BELIEF that Man arose through Creationism - teach it yourself at home - keep it away from my kids. And keep your Christianity out of our schools....
------------------------------------------------------

You're not the smartest critter on earth are you?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact." From article. There is 31 million pages on goggle about this. Obviously the education system failed you. Parts of it are fact, but parts are just "faith" too. So go ahead and prove me wrong. It is A "theory.

natural selection, evolution and other theories are made from conclusions based on the interpretation of a certain set of analyzable data. Lets keep it that way. Don't belittle Monotheistic religions by saying the mysteries of God can be put to the scrutiny of men/women in analytical form. Not to mention how unconstitutional this is because it excludes interpretations of creation from other religions besides the monotheistic ones.

If you're going to debate about who or what or why we were created, don't do it in a science text book. I don't want my kids going to school one day to learn about biology and then come home to ask me what the meaning of life is; besides how are teachers going to put that on a test? "how did Mendel develop his theory based on his observation of plants? If you don't believe in natural selection skip this question"??? All for what? just because some ignoramus thought it was ok to over liberalize the words in a biology book because he/she/it didn't know what it was used for?

Bagpipe100,

You are correct in guessing I subscribe to evolution. However, I attended catholic schools until i entered college, so i have a fairly strong background in that particular faith. I also have a cynical approach to religion, that may be apparent too, bu i feel i can approach a situation with an open mind.

I personally believe there are two criteria a theory must pass in order for it to be taught in a classroom. First it should be research scientifically and second it must be widely held.

First, i was basically arguing is that for creationism, or ANY theory, to be allowed to be taught in a classroom it needs to be tested, evaluated, analyzed; Just like evolution is tested and analyzed. I believe that for any theory to be taught it must pass through the rigors of scientific evaluation. I am not aware of scientific research into creationism. Does any exist?

Secondly, I feel theories must be widely accepted in order to be taught. For instance, many theories exist on how/why the dinosaurs went extinct, most have been tested, and evaluated, but only the few widely accepted theories are taught. Certainly creationism has a wide following, so this criteria would not be a concern.

Bottom line: If a theory is going to be taught in a science class then it should be treated like any other theory and be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

Other remarks:

It is clear that science has been wrong in the past. That is why these are all called theories. Theories can only be proven false, never true. Who know, in 300 years the scientific process may provide more evidence that creationism the valid theory?

u00aco6
Nice “slant” or take on Britain & the founding fathers. Sounds like you must have been there. Somehow I doubt it. Nice try though. FYI, the term separation of church & state was not a foundation stone nor is it part of the constitution. That it is even heard of today is remarkable seeing as how the term was taken from an obscure letter written to another leader. His mere suggestion on the matter sparked an outrage which ruined his political career. Imagine that ! Funny aint it, how people can distort history?

Doubtless, most people here think that all recorded history is 100% correct. Unfortunately we people are humans & do not have the real capacity to even gather all the facts & especially all the emotions & heart’s intents on all matters. Plus, it is difficult to impossible to expect the human recording the intelligence gathered to do so 100% without his own personal biases. You ‘separation of church & state” people always misuse this little proposition for example to also misinterpret the heart’s intent of the founding fathers. You make them out to be goofy, flakey weirdo’s. Doubt such people could put together & establish a COUNTRY ! Anyone who honestly & objectively looks at all the recorded history of these early leaders of our country including their public speeches can easily conclude they were not only “religious’ but that they emphatically believed in the one & only true God, the God of Abraham, Issac & Jacob & yes, the Father of Jesus Christ. The majority of them also made it clear that they could not imagine the state of this country at the hands of people who did not recognize & rely upon God for their leadership & determinations for right & wrong. Prayer in school & in the formal meetings of government, swearing to tell the truth on the bible in a court of law, recognition of God in the pledge of allegiance, “In God we trust “ on our money, & more are pretty good indicators of the FACT that this country was founded by people who were Christians & wanted their government to reflect, demonstrate & protect their faith in God.

Also, concerning “other gods”…yes there obviously are many gods (little g) but only one true God (big G). Those who do not acknowledge God, in effect are a god unto themselves. Those who do not “believe” in God are they who choose to rely upon themselves for their life & their way of living. This makes them a god unto themselves. They rely on & even take pride in the inherent powers of their own soul ( their mind, will power & emotions). This is plainly evident by the intellects bantering in this blog. Unbelievers reject God, just as did Adam & Eave so as to live their lives independently from God. This is the reason we cannot experience God today. There exists a barrier by which we cannot see or know God because of this very decision to live separately. We caused the separation. Fortunately we can still know God through a repentance from the stance of Adam & Eave.

Believe it or not, the choice that faced Adam & eave still exists today for every living soul. Then it was represented in the form of two trees, today it is a choice of continuing to live apart from Him or to repent of that stance & rely upon Him for your life & way of living. It’s your CHOICE !

I appreciate u00aco6's distinction between the realms of "science" and "science textbooks." Perhaps this distinction is needed. I agree with his two necessary qualifications 1.) Widely held 2.) Researched scientifically. Lets analyze each of these as they relate to origins.

1.) Widely Held
POINT A: I think that we can safely assume that Creationism is widely held, in some form or another, by the vast majority of the general public.
POINT B: I think that, regardless of "Project Steve" and the published remarks of NCSE, we can assume that there are at least SOME scientists who agree with creationism.
EVIDENCE for point B: Yes, I went to a Christian university, however, I had 2 professors (with Ph.d's from secular universities... one from a Swiss university and the other from the U. of AZ) who were Genesis believing creationists (one in Molecular Biology and the other in Organic Chemistry). These two do not represent "widely held" but they do show that the comments about "no real scientist believes in creationism" are exaggerated.

2.) Researched Scientifically
POINT A: I do believe that to some degree the scientific community refuses to publish any article that concedes to any aspect of creationism (or I.D., which is a broad category that includes creationism). It also comes down to funding. Because "we" don't believe that useful research can occur on the premise of creationism, of course it is not funded, and unfunded research has to survive by re-digesting the scraps of data provided (inadvertently) by other research.
POINT B: Creationism MUST have been researched science at one point. Creationism was held by the fathers of science, on whose shoulders modern scientists stand. It is not generally held now. Hence, at some point, there was scientific evidence for both.

Conclusion: By this definition, creationism does have a place in the science classroom. Does anyone have 1.) a criticism of my points, or 2.) does the definition of what belongs in the science classroom need to be re-evaluated?

Reading these comments I particularly enjoyed how proponents of biological evolution continuously evolve new arguments while proponents of creationism repeat the same tired arguments that have been crushed a million times. The watch analogy? Really??? I'm still waiting for the banana as proof of God's perfect design argument.

And as far as only Christians having evidence of God...

Let's hope the debate doesn't follow that law schools should start teaching that as long as alleged criminals have evidence that only they can see they are allowed to go free.

These comments are too frustrating to read. Someone on this blog actually made the argument that Obama is the AntiChrist. I read some of these comments and feel like I'm living 200 years ago.

U00aco6,
Thanks for the nice response. It seems that few people take the time to read through and think about what is said on here, and it is appreciated.
You were asking about if in creationism any legitimate science is done? I could write some stuff, but I think wcbpolish here wrote some good stuff on that prior to this reply of mine. If you want more I can see what I can dig up.
But I would still like to hear your definition of religion.

Also to JAS and many others on here, evolutionists need not prove the origin of life. Biological evolution concerns changes between generations of living organisms.

Holyman, you are intensely hypocritical. You so easily assert that written history is not 100% correct and fail to analyze the Bible in the same light. Can you claim to know what the intent was of the authors of the Bible? The translators of the Bible? Somehow I doubt it. And if you want an example of a founding father who was an outspoken atheist I submit Benjamin Franklin.

wcbpolish

I think it is a large leap of faith to say that since the fathers of science believed in creationism that at some point there was scientific evidence for it. First I have heard that scientists in the past were sometimes heavily persecuted for their beliefs, and may have falsely proclaimed their religious faith in their works to avoid trouble. Second just because you are a scientist and believe in creationism doesn't mean there is scientific evidence.

Speaking of evidence, I see a large amount of scientific evidence for evolution, and absolutely zero scientific evidence for creationism. I can not definitely say that God does not exist or that creationism is wrong, but I can definitely say that at this point religion has no place in science class. The personal beliefs of your science professors are just that, their personal beliefs. Ask them if creationism was covered in their doctorate program.

JRS ONE

Define religion.

JRS ONE
Though the bible does contain lots of history, it certainly is far from just that. It is a collection or body of work by several men over a period of thousands of years that were divinely inspired by God. I doubt you have seriously studied it with an open mind or else like many other intellects before you, you’d be impressed with the amazing continuity throughout. Also, look at the number of prophesies it contains & the amazing results & apply a mathematical probabilities equation to it & you would have to be impressed. After doing so, you may be forced to realize it takes more faith NOT to believe in God than it does TO believe in Him. Believe it or not, many unbelievers have become believers by setting out to prove the bible wrong. They’ve written books on just such an experience as well.

As for the inherent probabilities of error by bible translators, that is something grossly over rated. For one thing, the overall content is far greater than the individual single words that may have some slight meaning variations. Secondly, there is so much content that one who is a student of the bible can know the “spirit” of the content for which it was intended. For example, one particular scripture may not seem to make sense, but when considered with what is understood in numerous other passages the message comes to light. Thirdly, & this is something you cannot comprehend, the One who inspired the writers in the first place is alive inside the spirit of the believer to guide them in it’s true interpretation. Even then, the level of understanding varies in Christians depending upon their level of spirituality. The bible was purposely written in such a way that it could NOT be read & understood by each & every man except on a superficial level. It is intended to be a message to those who desire God & seek Him out earnestly, the meaning of which is hidden by those who do not. This earnest seeking brings them to God & God to them in their spirit by which He is then afforded the opportunity to communicate with them. Another thing that it hinges upon is the “condition” of a person’s heart but this would take up too much room to explain.
So to answer your question, yes I can claim to know the “intent” of the bible authors because same Spirit that inspired them is also now living in me.

As for Ben Franklin being an athiest, he was obviously in the minority. No one claims every single person was a Christian, but the one thing they had in common was a goal of being free to express either their belief or non belief in God.

FWIW, I am not in favor of teaching creation in a science class or any other for that matter because it is a spiritual matter & to do God & His message justice this should be taught by one who is spiritual. At the same time , I do not think evolution she be taught either. It IS NOT 100% factual & should not be taught as such. Just drop it & all this debate goes away. I do not see the importance or significance of teaching such a theory about man’s origin anyway. There are plenty of other things more important than that. The only reason this theory is such a hot commodity is because it gives rebellious men an answer to the nagging question deep within of our origin & purpose for existence.

In reply to JRS ONE

"Also to JAS and many others on here, evolutionists need not prove the origin of life. Biological evolution concerns changes between generations of living organisms."

As stated before, I am a YEC (just so you know what fundy group I belong to). I and those in my circle of friends (most are also YECs) have NO issue with changes between generations. We do, however, take issue with spontaneous generation of life. When you imply that one of the differences between creationists and evolutionists is that one believes species change and the other believes that they do not, you are creating a straw man. There are some who still hold to the idea that species do not change, however, this was an idea promoted by Aristotle that many creationists do not believe at this time (creationism can adapt too).
May I ask you to consider the concept of Baraminology. In this hypothesis, distinct living kinds were created, speciation occurred and continues to occur. This is a hypothesis promoted by creationists which is tested by attempting hybrid crosses and by comparing genetic and morphological characteristics. The issue that baraminologists struggle with, unlike their cladistic cousins, is that when they run into a timeline that is longer than expected, they cannot just add another couple million years to the age of the earth and later justify it by radiometric dating on extraterrestrial rocks.

And I think that you miss my point when you make the statement:
"The personal beliefs of your science professors are just that, their personal beliefs. Ask them if creationism was covered in their doctorate program."
My point was to say that there are legitimate scientists who ascribe to creationism, as a way to analyze whether the two credentials (as suggested by u00aco6) for admission into the curriculum were being met. If you do not believe that being a "widely held" idea is necessary for incorporation into the curriculum, please suggest other recommendations for curriculum qualifications.

Holyman I'm glad we agree that creationism doesn't belong in science class, but don't necessarily agree that it is because scientists can't be spiritual. Like wcbpolish said he studied under professors with very strong scientific knowledge and religious faith. I admit I haven't studied the Bible to the depth that you probably have, but I have read most of it. Being privately educated I had religion classes in high school and attended religious services a couple times a week. I used to consider myself a Christian but for me learning more about Christianity (not to mention other religions) was what turned me away from it. Certainly people have and will convert from atheist to deist but I expect that for every person that does that there are at least two that convert from deist to atheist, especially in the time and place when renouncing your faith will not cost you your life or your liberty.

Concerning the content of the Bible, I should hope that it is consistent in spirit, having been extensively edited over time as it has. There are plenty of examples of entire books that were written for the Bible and didn't make the cut because they didn't fit. Any book with a competent editor is going to have continuity and a consistent theme, whether it is fiction or non-fiction. As to why I can't comprehend the Bible like others purportedly do, I think your logic is rather convenient or some might even say circular. Biblical prophecies, most of which are still unfulfilled by the way, frankly to me seem like the kind of easily or self fulfilled drivel that you can get from Ms. Cleo's psychic hotline or some cheap tabloid horoscope except on a much grander scale.

wcbpolish

I apologize for not giving you response the time I gave holyman's, but I am short on time. Basically my point is this which I think is pretty simple: to be included in the curriculum a topic among other things has to be relevant to the subject. Evolution is a widely held scientific principle. It is supported by science and most widely held in the scientific community. That is why it is relevant in science class. Creationism is not supported by science and perhaps least widely supported by the scientific community. That is why it is not relevant in science class. Just because creationism is widely held is not enough to merit discussion in science class. Just because some scientists believe in Creation does not mean it is science. Religion is its own subject and has its own place (the church or whatever you want to call it). Let me put it this way. I believe in the English language and I believe in mathematics. As an English teacher I would have no problem with the statement "One is equal to two." As a math teacher I would have a problem with the equation "1=2". That these statements seem to contradict is not going to eat my conscience because they are two different subjects. Likewise in math you don't make statements like "1=one" or "one=one". I think that this is how it is possible to have YEC scientists, which I don't really have a problem with.

What I do have a very big problem with (in case you can't tell) is advocating bringing religion into the science classroom. Is it not equally ridiculous as demanding that all sermons, biblical teachings, and even the Bible itself contain a footnote about evolution?

freddyward “On another note, I like the idea that only Christians have evidence of God. It's a nice argument but what about the 'evidence' that other religions have in their hearts? It is logical to conclude that 'evidence' of a particular God being the 'one' is then false and that this internal evidence is a just a chemical malfunction of an overstressed brain.”

Unfortunately for you, what seems like a logical conclusion is really a tragic misjudgment when followed to the end result, (this being the eternal judgment of God in the day of reckoning).

There really is a huge difference between Christianity & other religions in that one is true, as prescribed by God & is “experienced” inside a person in an organ we refer to as a spirit. This is real. Jesus said that those “who worship God must do so in spirit & truth“. This means that it is in your newly enlivened spirit (by God) according to His means & power in the dimension of His reality (truth).

Other so-called religions cannot touch this dimension. They merely reside within the confines of the soul of man (the organ of his mind, will & emotions). Strictly speaking, the soul is a superficial organ which cannot touch the reality of God.

Please do not misunderstand, I do not mean any disrespect to either unbelievers or those who follow other religions. As logic would attest, there can & must only be one God. One must be “the One” & the others null & void. It is crucial to get it right. That is the only reason I post anything on the matter in the first place. I do not wish to engage in debates for the sake of debate but for the sake of the salvation of the souls of men. I am not concerned about the intellects of men but the eternal destination of their souls.

In the grand scheme of things, debates over science are of very little concern or value, except of course to those whose whole life will be summed up in their very short life span on this earth as we know it. It seems a real waste to do this when weighed in the balance of a future glorious ETERNAL span of life, does it not ?

Thank you JRS ONE. No need to apologize for the "short" reply. It was sufficient to explain your view.

I think that your basic premise is that there can be a division between different sorts of knowledge. The knowledge required in math is different from the knowledge required in English. A child can pass math even if they do not know English and vice versa. This I agree with.
POINT: Perhaps this is why fantasy and fiction are presented in English class: it does not matter if the story does not agree with science, as they are different classes and different genre of knowledge.
COUNTERPOINT: The teacher in English class presents fiction as fiction and does not portray it as truth. The teacher assumes that the students have the background knowledge (perhaps learned in science class) to discern fact from fiction and then suspend their disbelief so that they may understand the meaning of the story. The science teacher does not have this luxury. Because of various constraints (time, curriculum, personal knowledge) most science teachers stick to teaching the currently accepted version of science, knowing that most of their students do not have background knowledge to compare what they are hearing with other ideas. It's not just origins that suffers, but it suffers the most.

You make the statement:
"Is it not equally ridiculous as demanding that all sermons, biblical teachings, and even the Bible itself contain a footnote about evolution?"
Evolution has worked its way into some religious systems and religious texts. Religions claim to have truth. So does science. When the "truths" contradict, there a few options that religions have. 1.)Deny the controversy 2.)Claim that evolution is wrong 3.)Integrate the two ideas 4.)Keep the topic open 5.)? I guess there could be other options
1.)Deny the controversy
This is what many churches and individuals choose to do. They fall back on the "different types of knowledge" arguement. This group would not ask that evolution be in religion or creation be in science, as the two speak to different issues. I feel like this is where you would fall.
2.)Claim that evolution is wrong
This is where most fundies fall in the scheme of things. Of course this group would NOT want evolution in the church and would be ravenous to get creationism in the schools.
3.)Integrate the two ideas
When ever two competing ideas are combined, there is compromise. Compromise falls on a spectrum. On directly contradictory issues, bias may be given to holy writings, or it may be given to science. 6-10,000 years can never equal 4.6Billion years. This is how theistic evolution comes onto the scene. This group DOES include evolution in its understanding of the Bible. Churches that follow this line of thinking DO preach a sort of evolution. And this group would probably not fight for creationism to be taught in schools. Pope John Paul II even stated that evolution is compatible with Christian faith.
4.)Keep the topic open for discussion
I doubt that very much of the population can truly fall in this group, as this is a transitional stage. Discussions lead to decisions. This group would likely desire creationism in the classroom and would desire that their minister speak frankly about evolution. But I don't think that many can truly claim to be in this camp.

My conclusion:
The discussion of different knowledges for different subject areas leave a vile taste in my mouth. This is likely due to my belief in Truth. I believe that there is truth and that it can be found. "Two is equal to one," although grammatically correct, is not true. Similarly "The ratio to Al26 to Be10 indicates that the Allende meteorite has been going through radioactive decay for a minimum of 3 million years" is grammatically and mathematically (considering the rate decay) correct, however I do not believe that this is Truth.

I will concede that my version of truth may not belong in the classroom where the knowledge demanded of the students in scientific knowledge. But I don't think that TX is opening the door for every crazy fundy teacher like myself to spout our version of Truth, but rather that the goal is to allow honest appraisal of the current scientific paradigm.

Yes, crazy fundies will shove their feet in the door and take advantage.
Yes, some may feel that any concession is unacceptable.
No, I do not feel that process based science (which runs our technological world) will be injured by this decision.

JRS ONE,

Most of your arguments hinge on evolution being purely science, and creationism being purely religion. However you have, at best, nebulously defined science and religion. If you are to continue to partition these ideas, and place evolution in the realm of science, and creationism into religion, then you need to rigorously define what you mean by science and religion.

The problem with almost all of the arguments from the christian side is that they assume that non Christians cannot comprehend the evidence there is for creationism. It is possible to prove the existence of a god, it is a another thing altogether to prove the existence of a god who is exactly like the Christian God and to prove the truths essential to Christianity's faith.

There are several ways to prove there is a God. One of them was discovered by the ancient greek philosophers. It is basically summarized as this, for every effect there is a cause and for every cause their is also a cause for that cause.
This continues until all the effects and causes that exist today are traced all the way back to the beginning of time at which point there was one cause without an effect. Something or someone that existed forever, even before there was time. Now if that something was bound by physics then it could never have caused itself to create everything else and If it were not bound by physics then it would be all powerful. That all powerful thing would have to be intelligent to exercise it's power. Therefore there must be some type of god. This god could have created the earth in many different ways, the way it created the earth could have very well been the way taught by creationists.

halflife1,

Thanks for the summary of the unmoved mover concept. Steven Hawking deals a bit with that concept in his book "A Brief History of Time" Although he cannot give reason to what caused the initial expansion of the universe from a singularity, he explains that when/if all matter was compressed into an infinitesimally small point, all causation previous to that would not matter in the least. In that singularity, everything would be as compressed as is possible, hence nothing could move, and in a closed system like this, cause and effect (hence time) would cease to exist.

The problem with this concept is that it is basically a "god of the gaps" belief. If our evidence for god is the absence of a scientific explanation, our god will disappear when science matures to the point of explaining the phenomena.

The "unmoved mover," the watch analogy, and Pascal's wager are ideas that would go into reason for my belief (1 peter 3:15), and yet I recognize that these arguments will not be sufficient to one who is not already inclined to believe. Logic and reason are supplemental to faith. If you put your faith in reason alone, you will find yourself lacking.

Have just spent the past 45 mins reading most every post thus far. Made an account to post. Many great points on both 'sides'.

But isn't that really the biggest problem with this whole thing? Most of the 'big posters' on either side write as tho they've read what others have said, and they probably have, but reading an idea and actually trying to understand an idea are two very separate things. As to not rile up anyone in particular I'll speak of myself: Loose Christian upbringing + strict Christian primary education + liberal Christian secondary education (BA Sociology/Psychology) = Secular Humanist. I disagree with all religions but feel Atheism too closely mirrors it in it's certainty. No matter what the Truth is we'll probably never know, so let's just do what we can for each other. If there is a personal God who made us in His image, that's what He'd probably want anyway. If it's just us and our theories, lets give credit where credit is due and take a moment to be proud to be part of the most advanced species known. Either way consciousness is an amazing thing to have. anyway... I've been thinking about this issue for the majority of my life (not to say much) and have seen one constant: People like to be on a 'team' and when you have a team mentality going into a debate you've cut yourself off from other ides. It feels good to be part of something. Some may argue it's socially necessary.

Would do each person here good to remember that anyone interested enough in this topic to read it all and post is likely an intelligent person no matter what team they're on.

Up front I must say, I am a Christian and I believe in creation. I also believe in scientific study. I am disappointed that PopSci has (in this and past articles) made anyone who doubts evolution out to be unintelligent, biased, political, or religious nutjobs. The progress of science often happens when someone reconsiders ideas that the scientific community has already denounced.
I don't deny that some religious people (including Christians) are unintelligent, biased, political, or nutjobs, but then again the scientific community is well represented in those areas as well.
Consider this hypothetically: if God were real, and creation not evolution was the true "origin of species" what would science find at the end of all their study? You may say science has disproved the existence of God. That simply isn't true. Science hasn't produced conclusive evidence for the existence of God. That is a different thing altogether. Besides science hasn't really been looking for God.

To the commenters who have claimed that creationists and evolutionists are using different "axioms", I can't say that I completely agree. Sure not everyone will start with all the same assumptions, but it isn't as though Christians are all spiritual or philosophical and aren't interested in objective truth. As a Christian myself, I believe there really is a being/person whom I call God that really did make everything. I am not talking about a tree falling in the woods not making a sound. If God is real the way that I believe Him to be (based on evidence and interpretation in the same manner as the scientific method) then a scientist would be able to prove His existence if they knew the right way to conduct the experiment.

It is important to see that reasonable Christians aren't just pushing a random belief system, they really believe (again based on evidence) that God is real. If I have come to the conclusions I have based on evidence, and another person comes to a different conclusion using mostly the same evidence, who is to say that the other person is more capable than me of coming to the correct conclusion? Don't dare invoke questions about IQ, mental health, or even agreement on the part of the scientific community. Only people who are smarter than the most intelligent Christian could question their IQ, there is no way that all Christians are crazy, and the scientific community has changed opinions on issues so often throughout history that I would be surprised if they could agree on the best way to tie a shoe. And there are far more legitimate scientists who doubt evolution than we are led to believe.

Acendar, I applaud your level-headed, kinder, gentler approach. I feel sad for you though having been exposed to the truths of Christ (though probably not in an accurate way) & having gone the way of secularism in seeking out the truth. I too was once very interested in psychology to help explain who & why we are the way we are. Fortunately, I did find the truth & in so doing, I found psychology to be superficial & ultimately vane & fruitless. The problem is that we are a very complex being, to which the field of psychology has only begun to scratch the surface. It has observed & explained many things , but the inherent problem is that even with manifold progress it can do nothing to significantly help a person. It does offer help but only in a week superficial way.

I Know all this may seem to have nothing to do with the main topic here yet it ultimately has everything to do with it. Please let me explain. Mankind has a very great & disturbing problem in that he is in a degenerate state. You may think yourself quite intelligent but that’s only because you compare yourselves to animals & other humans. Man does indeed have powers in his soul through his self-consciousness, his mind, will & emotions. However, they are very limited & even corrupted by a thing God has shown us to be in our “flesh”. Being “created” in the image of God we contain the virtues of God in varying degrees & yet conversely we also have a sinful nature within us as well which causes us to be, to say, to think & to do vain & bad things. We all can attest to the fact that we do not have to exert much effort to do or to be bad. On the contrary, we have to put forth a great deal of effort to overcome many bad & harmful tendencies. This brings me to the ultimate truth…Jesus Christ, the way , the truth & the life. The truth is that Jesus did what He did to set us free from the wrong, fleshly nature within us, but there is a very big catch to it. We have to resign ourselves to trust & rely upon Him for everything including our very life. His life is transferred to us in our new spirit by which we can begin on the journey towards living a life that transcends the former life & way of living. This is why I say psychology is superficial as it only offers ways to effect outward behaviors while Jesus transforms our core being so that our fundamental problems & issues are effectively replaced with His transcendent, overcoming holy life. (BTW, this is not generally known, much less taught or practiced by the average Christian.)

My reason for even posting here is not so much because I do not agree with evolution itself but for what it generally represents, which is an opposition & affront to God. You see, this is a fundamental stance which dates all the way back to Adam. Adam didn’t fall through sin, he fell because he disobeyed God by choosing to develop himself along the line of his soul powers apart from God. In simple terms, he rejected God’s provision of higher development through God in his spirit (the tree of life), by opting to do so independently by his “own” means of intellect ( the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of right & wrong). This has been the ongoing plight of man ever since. We are not facing anything new in an effort to “create” a better, more refined social order. (This dates back to the first man.) We do this today through psychology & other so-aptly-called self help means, through so-called advancements in government, technology, science, medicine, biology, varying forms of spiritism & even man made religions. These are the by-products of the soul of man in his vain-glorious attempts at human development & advancement albeit, apart from God.

God has given us the solution to our predicament in Jesus Christ yet man continues to reject Him in favor of whatever he can come up with through the limited powers of his soul. In a sense, it is much like a 5 year old child telling his parents to get lost, “I don’t need you any longer. I can do well enough on my own. I will grow up on my own & take care of my self with out you bossing me around anymore.” The funny thing is, many of us experienced this scenario to some degree at some point in our upbringing. This is the very independent, self-seeking, disobedient nature we inherited from the independent, self-seeking , disobedient Adam.

I hope some true seekers of the truth can see my point here. That the discussion of this very blog here represents nothing but a continuation of the rebellious, disobedient nature of mankind. Evolution in general has become largely a tool for opposing God just as we have been from the beginning. Mankind very much wants to “create” his own explanations & reasons for his existence. This is very much a serious affront to our creator.

It is with hesitation that I post again. I usually stay away from these things because I can't seem to put down the pen and feel it never gets anyone anywhere. I say my piece... you say yours... we leave satisfied or angry. It's that idea, that pettiness, I'd like to set aside as we discuss. I do not write to provoke or exaggerate.

Holyman, I appreciate you laying your beliefs out. Far too few outline the specifics of what they believe. It's my opinion some of the hesitation is because A) peers will think them stupid and/or B) God will turn the page on judgment day and pull out a photo copy of their heresy before casting them into eternal torment. Can we say "fire protection"?

You had suggested that I may have not been "exposed to the truths of Christ...probably not in an accurate way", so let me clear that up. I was saved at 5 by saying "the prayer"(to some this means everything, to others nothing), baptized soon after, attended strict Baptist HS/Church (where i said 'the prayer' dozens of times... just to be sure) where I was exposed to the Bible daily through chapels, daily Bible classes, went on missions trips, led Bible studies etc,etc,etc.... could go on with this for awhile - the point being: I tried with all of my heart to truly Love Jesus Christ as my savior and all that went with that. Hook line and sinker. Everything was black and white as it is for many kids/young adults. I cannot stress enough that this was comfortable. I've never felt anything like KNOWING I was right, that I'd found Truth, it was like intoxication, or truly making love - simply wonderful. The problem was, it came at the cost of critically thinking. This was always the problem and it's not rebellious teenage angst.

I hear proponents of various religions (mostly the big 3 of Abrahamic origins) state that there is all this information that debunks ideas that science has unraveled, or instead, insist that we are flawed creatures unknowingly striking back at our 'parent'. I have simply not found this to be true (tho am willing to read. suggestions?). But I admit that this may be because I like learning more about things I believe in. When was the last time you read Dawkins? I finished up The God Delusion only a few months ago, but it's been 4-5 years since I read Phillip Yancy. We surround ourselves with like minded people/things/ideas because that's how we get through the day sane. I can make an argument for this being a good thing (as can many Christians... don't want the devil getting a 'foothold in your life"), but in general I think it hurts us all.

You'd mentioned psychology several times and yes, it's a very new field which we know relatively little (and can accurately explain less) about. So scratch that. Let's talk Sociology. I don't know you and therefore won't 'tell you the way it is', but I'd wager your parents were Christian. If not, then at least the community around you was. And if I'm completely wrong it's only because you were actually born in Iran and it was only due to the grace of Jesus that you found Him. Truly, I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic(maybe a little sarcastic..we all have our biases) but my point is we all believe what we believe because of our experiences (mostly upbringing) and what we 'know' we know from them. At the same time we were learning fire is hot and do what mom says to get a cookie, we were learning that white bearded Jesus is God and furthermore (for most of us) if we don't listen to him we'll be in terrible pain for ever and ever... and ever... and ever........amen. It simply makes far too much since that human kind created the idea of God to explain why we are here and as an institution of men (like any other) it has used various methods of (Christians the stick / Muslims the carrot) continuing its existence.

I don't hear many speak from the point of view as myself because I've found few that take the step I have. It was scary as hell (quite literally) at first... but once you honestly open your mind to things that we actually know (think 'know' like we know how gravity works. lower case "k") there is simply so much to be astonished by. Have you ever stared at a nebula with your own eye and understand what you're actually seeing... or truly taken time to meditate on just how long 135,000,000,000 years is? Einstein came up with the general theory of relativity in his own head, then others proved it by observing the bending of star light by the gravity of our own sun (don't need to be corrected about the specific astrophysical terms of all of this)... When we consider these things how can anyone honestly believe in the talking snake without fear of pain or promise of reward? So many ideas our brains simply are not able to fully comprehend..... i find that absolutely awesome!

If anyone has actually read this through you're most likely either thinking "gee this is kinda funny", "omg wth is this not about textbooks!!!" (also very important), or "yep... he'll burn eventually... then he'll know he was a fool for committing blasphemy (the only unforgivable sin)".

As a last note I challenge anyone who insists that Jesus Christ is the "One" aside from all other gods in all other nations throughout recorded history to research the well documented life of the Egyptian god Horus. In short: He is the story of Jesus long before Jesus was said to exist.

At this point I'll invite anyone who'd enjoy continuing discussing "the big debate" to e-mail me at my newly created account: usedforthreads@hotmail Therefore allowing these thoughtful people to go back to discussing the pros and cons of ID in schools.

wcbpolish,

you make an excellent point about our faith cannot be based on reasoning alone, I completely agree with this. However, we cannot forget that correct reasoning based on truth will always lead to more truth. To deny this you must also deny absolute truth. Of course correct reasoning based on near truth will always lead to non truth. That being said your rebuttal concerning the original cause I talked about earlier is based on near truth. If the original cause was bound by physics then it would obviously disappear, but as was proven earlier the original cause was NOT bound by physics! The original cause was therefore not bound by time either, something or someone not bound by time could not disappear because it would not have any time in which to disappear. That being said the original cause must still be here today, because it must always be here.

Also the original cause was not a supercompact ball of matter because it would then be bound by physics and must therefore have a prior cause. When the original cause created everything it did not require it to relinquish part of itself to be formed into the universe. It just created the universe outside of itself. For something intelligent and not bound by physics(in other words all powerful) this would be a very easy task.

It is of constant frustration to me that the only people I regularly hear throwing around the term "absolute truth" like it's something we can work with are those arguing from a religious point of view. Believing information recorded in the bronze age continues to hold the "absolute truth" used to explain our current day circumstances stretches far past what reason can allow. This is where faith comes in and faith not only doesn't require reason but thrives outside of it.

Acendar,

I can't tell whether you are saying absolute truth doesn't exist or if you are saying that what we believe to be true is not absolute truth. I believe it is impossible to convince any non christian that every aspect of our faith is true, but I do believe it is completely possible to prove absolute truth. The reasoning is simple and straight forward. Absolute truth must be true because it controls everything we do. We live because we are alive, this is absolute. If everyone's truth was whatever they wanted it to be then only people we wanted to live would live. It would be impossible to learn anything new, because we would be creating our own reality. Whether someone believes what Christians believe is truth or not. There still must be absolute truth

I believe that absolute truth (Truth) does exist, but I do not believe it something that we can use to debate with. There are simply so many factors affecting our perception of what is going on around us, not to mention our biases and if we throw a personal God into the mix that has an agenda then I guess anything is possible. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't strive to learn Truth, but even ideas based in hard science may one day turn out to simply be wrong, in which case most of the scientific community will move on to understand truths in a new way, and they'll be thrilled to be more knowledgeable about the natural world. My problem is that followers of religion never move on or readjust their perceptions of the facts as evidence changes. Everything always has to fall in place for a reason, even if that reason is as absurd as something like "God has manipulated dinosaur bones to appear older than they are in order to test our faith". Is that in any way a reasonable way to achieve Truth? People actually believe that stuff... and more importantly they vote! Truly... how many lives could have been enriched/saved if federal funding of stem cell research hadn't been cut off by those believing in the talking snake and burning bush?

Despite any religious beliefs, many people believe in the Big Bang. Whether God sparked that off or some crazy mind-boggling extra dimensional quantum physics, it doesn't matter for my point, which is: If you think of our expanding universe from an outside point of view, from a timeless overhead God-view, it is easy to see how we currently understand it all working... but the trick here is to understand that point of view simply doesn't exist. It is illogical to try and view things from that angle because that angle is outside of 'existence' and therefore doing so becomes a practice in futility and leads to flawed conclusions.

The same goes for Truth. It can't be known because to know it would truly make us God.

It sounds like holyman has been drinking the kool-aid.

@Bagpipes

Look up religion and science in a dictionary. I'm sure what you will find will easily substitute for my definition.

@wcbpolish

Hahaha it did end up being a little longer than planned. I was late but so was everyone else because of rain. Holyman would claim this was the big guy in the sky looking out for me. I'll chalk it up to the weather.

To everyone that is so intent on poking holes in evolution, you shouldn't throw rocks when you attend a glass church. I'm sure there are some minor disagreements in the scientific community over the details of evolution. These squabbles by the way are far more specific ideas than what you would learn in your typical science class. The disagreements in religion are immense. Cultures have gone to war because of disagreements as simple as Isaac or Ishmael. WAR. When we see scientists taking up arms to decide their disagreements over the finer points of evolution in battle I will admit that maybe evolution should be dropped from the science curriculum until things are worked out.

Since the religion of choice in this discussion seems to be Christianity, look at the differences in different brands of Christianity. Do all the Christians here besides holyman (I know he does), believe that they are 100% right? How do you explain the church that says you are only 95% right? What about the mosque or temple that says you are only 50% right and 50% wrong? What about the polytheist that says you are 99% wrong? If your own affairs were in order, you would have less trouble from former deists like myself, who find it hard to believe in something, when even the most devoted can't agree on what to believe.

I am not rabidly anti-religious. I am not going to cry about the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance or on public monuments. I won't even hop over to popreli.com and defend science's incursion into the church. Religion is not necessarily the sworn enemy of science, but it can be. Look at the Muslim world which used to be the most technologically advanced. Real quick, name an important technological advance or scientific finding to come from the modern Muslim world. (I know holyman, it's because Islam isn't the one true religion or whatever) Do I think that the same thing will happen to the U.S.? No. However the easiest way to prevent anything similar even on a much smaller scale is to keep religion out of science class.

Acendar,

“My problem is that followers of religion never move on or readjust their perceptions of the facts as evidence changes.”

Define religion, define science. Your argument hinges on these foggy notions you have been referring to.

JRS ONE,

Your short, and uncurtious, tempts me to believe that you have not thought much about what those things mean. I have asked for your definitions, so that I may show the flaws in your logic or that I may see where I myself have misunderstood you. As you have not provided them, I will here argue against the perceived flaws.

To Everyone,

These definitions are important, everyone in this discussion keeps using them, but no one will define them. Going back to what I have said earlier in the board. The scientific method does not prove things in the positive sense. It will not give you the absolute truth. If you start with a given scientific model, that model comes with a set of axioms which are themselves not provable. The truth or falsehood of the model depends on the truth or falsehood of the axioms from which it is built. The scientific method can however be used to disprove things. Because if a scientific model predicts A, but we observe B in our experiment (and A is not equal to B) then our model is proven false, and either needs to be reworked or scrapped all together.

Why is this important? Because, you keep referring to creationism as a religion, and evolution as science, and yet give absolutely no reason why. If you say that religion is what can’t be proved, then, read the above paragraph. You can’t prove any scientific model. So evolution is religion. You say, ‘but what about all the evidence, why do dinosaur bones appear so old?!?’ Well, you don’t dig up a dinosaur bone and it has a nice neat tag on it saying ‘I am so and so many years old’. No, you will observe something about it (like some radio isotopes), that observation will then be processed through a scientific model and kick out some answer for how old that bone is. However, that answer is only as trustworthy as the model which gave it, which is only as good as the axioms you used to form that model. But for instance, in the case of radio isotopes, you need to make a few assumptions like, what were the ratios of these isotopes to begin with, also you need to assume something about the consistency of the decay rate. If you are very certain that the starting ratios of isotopes and consistencies of decay rates are as many evolutionists would have them, then we can easily go back further in your model and find other axioms which will put them in doubt.

Creationists and evolutionists start with a different set of basic assumptions, a different set of axioms (though the intersection is non-empty), so of course they have different conclusions about things. Observations, devoid of a scientific model are meaningless. The same observation can be predicted by two completely different scientific models, and when interpreted through each model will have completely different meaning, and those meanings could even be at odds with each other (such as the age of something).

If you choose one scientific model and would like to disprove another, you must abandon all axioms of your chosen model, and then pick up the axioms of the other, and using only them, show that there is an inconsistency.

So if you are creationists, you need to walk in the shoes of an evolutionist to show evolution is false. And if you’re an evolutionists, then you’d better sit down with an open mind with a creationist who knows their stuff and using only the assumptions a creationists would have show that it leads to inconsistencies.

Any statement about “Creationism is religion, and evolution is science” is not a statement made from logos, it is one made from pathos. It is a statement not founded in logic, but in emotion, or feeling. And it shows the true nature of most evolutionists fairly well; that they have nothing more to their beliefs about the world than most creationists, that evolution is their faith. Evolution is a paradigm in which they do science, it is not itself science. Creationism is a paradigm in which others do science; it is not a science itself. Which is the absolute truth? One, the other, neither? You’re not going to prove one in the positive, and if you want to prove one in the negative then you’ll have to do so by only using the assumptions of that paradigm. So in essence it appears that on this board most people have been using the word ‘science’ for the evolutionary paradigm, and using ‘religion’ as a generic word for any other paradigm. The only people who are completely convinced that all the evidence supports evolution are the people who have never bothered to fully test out a different paradigm. I’m not, here and now, telling you that evolution isn’t correct; if that’s your religion go for it. But I am saying that it does not have the scientific high ground based on any argument thus far given by anyone in this discussion.

Knowledge starts by faith, and builds up from there. While you can’t prove something to be absolute truth, you might as well assume it exists….or else there is no point ever talking about science. Let me conclude by saying, that in spite not being able to prove something undeniably to all people (no matter what axioms they have chosen). You better (as Pascal kinda put it) be able to deal w/ the consequences of wagering on the wrong set of initial assumptions.

I'm born and raised in Texas. I'm not nor ever was a religious person. I do not think public school is for that purpose. There are plenty of churches in Texas, there is not a shortage. If you want your children to learn about your religion, take them to your church, not public school. Public school isn't about someone who doesn't believe in your god teaching your children how to live with your own moral set of values. Evolution may not be able to explain everything, nor is it a replacement for hope that religion can provide, but it is a factual record of what we have learned, and to deny it is a silly as denying religion. Enough people believe BOTH, why can't eveyone accept them together?

@Bagpipes100

I didn't mean to be discourteous or short with you but only to mean that I didn't think my definitions were especially special. Having seen your thoughts on the subject I agree that I should be more specific because our notions appear vastly different.

Let me start be strongly disagreeing with your assertion "Knowledge starts with faith". Knowledge starts with observation. Our understanding of gravity exists not because the first time you drop something you have faith that it will fall down. It exists because the first time you drop something you observe it falling down. And the second. And the third. Eventually you figure out that this is just the way it is. If any single one of those times the object were to go straight up, then our understanding would instantly change. Have we proved that gravity is an absolute truth? According to a very strict definition, no. You may say that you have faith that gravity exists because it hasn't been proven, but I am willing to accept it as fact, because, to borrow a legal term, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, and this is where you will find that my notion of science is not extraordinary, science is observable and repeatable. Likewise radiometric dating is an acceptable scientific method because certain isotopes have constant half-lives that have never been observed to change. When scientists use methods based on what are, for all intents and purposes, scientific facts, to construct theories about how life on this planet came to its current state, call me crazy, but I believe that qualifies as science.

Religion on the other hand, is what starts with faith. Choosing to believe in something for which there is no scientific evidence takes faith. If there were scientific evidence that the Christian God created the earth and everything on it, Creationism would no longer be religion, and I would have no problem with it being taught in science class. But there isn't. None. Nothing besides the Bible points to this conclusion, and the Bible is just a book, not scientific evidence.

For someone that is so concerned with "initial assumptions" I find it strange that you would refer to Pascal's wager, which itself involves such demanding assumptions as to render it generally worthless.

Seen from Paris France,

Here in the normal occidentalised civilised world very few have even heard about Chretinism.... must be an Amercanism no one's understand here.

The science in America is at the top of Evolution - and we all agree with them: we came from a mythocondrial Eve - And I approve all JRS ONE said.

Regarding evolution the Christian Church in Rome is more clever than the ignorants creationists of America, Rome wants to survive!!! The Church has REJECTED the creationist's comic show.

The creationists of America won't survive the actual Evolution Cycle because it is a well known fact that this bigotry have been infiltred by the masters of deception: the risible scientologists à la Ronny.

Think of it bunch of retarded creationists now you are alone with your new pseudo fringe science in America diverging from the say of Rome. Creationist = Chretinist = ignorant middle class American...

And yes there is one god - but it doesn't belong to Christians or to ANY religion. Nor does it "belong" to America... or to an elected People... It should be the god of every living organism in this universe, even your dog.

I Love the clever America... Now it is time to evolve again, and recreate a brave new world in the name of the freedom of consciousness.

It is time that the 'freedom of consciousness' become a new chapter in the history of Evolution, it is time to create an addendum to "The Humans Rights"

And it wont be a revolution, but an evolution step by step, degree by degree.

Love is the primary RULE of Evolution
Hate is the rule of religions.

Patrick

Like I said before, observation means nothing without a framework to interpret it in. And that frame work is based on faith. How can you have confidence that radioactive decay is constant? We've only observed it for how long now? Given the evolutionary notion of billions of years...we certainly can't say we've observed anything long enough.

Bringing up gravity is hardly an argument for evolution. Yes, even evolutionists know there is gravity, but it is a scientific notion common to many other paradigms.

I think you've missed my point about the intial assumptions. Because I'm all about putting ones faith behind a set of them. However, when it comes to examining a different paradigm than the one you yourself accept, you need to first put aside your initial assumptions and take up those new ones. Which you might consider doing sometime, it'll be informative. You might even get a better perspective on what science, and reasoning is really about.
As far as Pascal is concerned. I think the general idea still stands. There are many paradigms, worldviews, etc. Each will have different consequences if they are the true one. So it's just reasonable to make sure you can accept those consequences.

But as it stands, evolution is just a religion. Not one which many will admit to being so. And as such, needs to find an exit from the classroom if that's really what the seperation of church and state is about.

I grow weary with evolutionist arguments regarding creationism having no observable proof, when clearly they have seem to have the very same issue. When, do tell, has anyone actually observed and come up with demonstratable proof that the very process of evolution is occuring. I'm not talking about microevolution, where obvious observable changes take place within a particular species, but more about macroevolution, where these changes reveal a whole new kind that could undoubtedly be called a new species.

Have you observed any new species being formed recently? Wholly new genetic information required for a true species change does not just appear from nowhere, and obviously to get from a single celled organism millions of years ago to where we are now would require a whole conglomeration of brand new genetic material that somehow just appeared, formed itself together and functioned almost as if they were designed.

You talk of theory of evolution as if it is somehow analagous to the theory of gravity in its scientific merits. Well, gravity can be observed in real-time, but can the same be said of evolution? No. Most of evolution's "facts" are based on observation of a historical condition, i.e. what has already occurred, essentially making it a study in history. And as we know, interpretations of history can vary significantly based upon one's presuppositions. This goes to the heart of what Bagpipes100 is stressing- these assumptions (axioms) are what builds the framework for driving your interpretation. So yes, there is definitely a good measure of initial faith in something required for both creation AND evolution, because oftentimes when they look at the same set of evidence, they often come to very different conclusions, both seeming valid based upon their initial individual assumptions.

I'm sorry but you both missed my point. I never implied that evolution is as universally obvious as gravity or that I have personally observed and repeated what creationists call macroevolution. What I will stand by is that there is scientific evidence that evolution has occurred and is occurring. Does that mean that it is absolutely correct? No. Does that mean it shouldn't be taught? Of course not. Many people here have taken the technically accurate stance that things can only be disproved, but that doesn't mean we completely abandon trying to learn anything. If you take that same technical stance, both evolution and creation will never be proven. But as of right now, only evolution has scientific evidence to support it. This scientific evidence stands on a framework of observation, not faith.

You both make the mistake of believing that "an assumption is an assumption is an assumption". Assuming that something you have observed your whole life to be true, and that everyone else in history can and has observed to be true, is true, is not much of an assumption at all. Assuming that something is true that you and most if not all people have never observed is quite a large assumption. That is as basic an argument as I can make.

JRS ONE:
as to the reference to "what creationists call macroevolution"

I would just like to clarify that the term "macroevolution" is not confined to creationist lingo.

POINT A: I have seen the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" explained in an older college biology textbook called "Biology: A View of Life" which includes Steven J. Gould as an editor. (This book is/was in my book collection, but is in MI and I currently am in AK)

POINT B: The term can be found in the April 2009 Edition of Discover Magazine on the lower left corner of page 52 (Dinosaur Resurrection). "At last, we would have a truly experimental way of studying macroevolution, the kind of changes that lead to the creation of new species."

I say this in order to clear up any confusion about the use of that particular term. At one point in time I too mistakenly believed that it was a distinction created by creationists.

It is good to know that "At last" we can really study the theory of evolution that is already so strongly supported. ;-)

just so y'all(yes, I am from Texas) know there is NO scientific evidence for either evolution or creationism. Why? because science is only observation. Obviously you can not watch either evolution or creation for the simple reasons that if evolution were true it would take billions of years, too long of a time to observe,and if creationism were true it would have already happened and no longer be observable.

The supposed evidence for either evolution or creationism is (as has been said earlier) based on the person's personal views. For instance using potassium-argon dating, also known as K/Ar ( a form of radio-metric dating)on lava fields. The evolutionist would assume that the argon had left the lava at a constant rate, meaning billions of years of age. While the creationist would assume that it left a less constant rate, meaning we K/Ar dating would not lead to billions of years at all. The main reason creationists would assume it might have left quite quickly is because of the immense pressure that water has on lava (remember the flood). Creationists have proven that recently cooled lava on land appears quite young (using K/Ar) while the newly formed lava under the sea appears quite old. Multiply these numbers with a world wide flood and it makes perfect sense. If you don't believe in the flood then the evolutionists data make more sense.

Point being you can't prove either one with science, the only way science could help is if apparent evidence for one theory outweighed apparent evidence for the other theory.

Having said this, I challenge anyone to provide more apparent evidence for evolution then for creationism. I am positive creationism would win. Although that would only convince someone who was open minded.

Let me explain what I mean by "apparent evidence". The easiest way to do this is to use a crime scene example. When examining a crime scene, in this case a murder, you might find a hair from a suspect. It appears he committed the crime. Now this doesn't mean he committed the crime, all it means is that his hair is there. It could have gotten there many ways, it could have been tracked in by someone who had hugged him or picked up his hair in some other way. He could have been there before the crime took place or it could have been purposely left by someone. Now if you also find his fingerprints on the murder weapon and some of his tracks leading to the crime scene, and also someone says they saw the murderer wearing a red shirt, which is what the suspect was wearing that day, it probably means he committed the crime. All of this things are "apparent evidence". Now he might have not committed the crime, but the odds of all this things happening and him still being innocent are astronomical.

Now I restate my challenge, I challenge anyone to provide more apparent evidence for evolution than for creationism. I am confident that creationism will succeed.

Acender,

What you said about absolute truth not being debatable because everyone is biased, makes some sense. Obviously, it is much harder to prove something to someone if they are biased against it. Although, you also said you believe in absolute truth which means there is obviously one bias which is correct. The question I want to ask is "which bias is the best bias to be biased by?" I therefore challenge you to prove that evolution is a better bias, based on whatever terms you prefer: morally, scientifically, philosophically, or whatever. I believe creationism will win this one too.

halflife1,

I believe in absolute truth in that: "my grandmother is not sitting next to me right now." & "I cannot see the sun at the moment". But these statements are deductive. The problem comes when you try and say: "The sun is extremely hot".

I have no doubt that creation scientist have found bits and pieces to support their claim, I used to subscribe to a creation newsletter and sat in on several lectures from their best and brightest. But it's all in the face of overwhelming support of evolution from the vast majority of scientists. Everyone has their biases, I choose to view my world in the light of what the majority of our best have tested and found to be as close to the truth as we know it to be through observation, rather then to allow my philosophical views to warp the way I view science. It isn't truth, it is the best we can do with the tools we know we have.

We've used religion throughout recorded history to try and reach God, to use our cognitive minds to figure out why we are here. This is apparently something we long for as conscious beings and I think the pursuit can yield good things. Community fellowship, generosity, support, and a grounding for living a stable life. But these are things that we have found to be good for society as a whole, they are not bound to religious teachings but simply to positive social interaction without the baggage religion brings with it. Most of it can be summed up in it's large scale nonacceptance of differing opinions that are contrary to tradition. It's perfectly fine for two men to kill each other in war or "serving God"(as shown throughout the Bible and nearly every day in Iraq), but two men loving each other and expressing that physically is abhorrent. Propping up the Bible or most any primary religious text as something to base the morals supported by today's social standards, in any modern country in the world, is ridiculous.

I can't say either "evolution" or "creationism" is a "better bias", but I can argue that the pursuit of science is better for us as a spices than is the pursuit of religion. It allows us to strive for a batter TODAY rather then constantly look towards the next life. It frees us from the ever present wrath of a jealous and ever watchful being that tracks our every thought in order to keep us in line. Children will learn societal norms because they work on their own (don't take my stuff, I won't take yours), not because they are bound by dogma. And I absolutely believe that the big push for ID in schools is very much Christian based. Children need to be taught HOW to think about ideas outside of science, that what it explains can and will change as our knowledge continues to grow. ID tries to fill in that "keep your mind open" idea with what is packaged as a respectable scientific approach to an equally likely explanation. It is outside the box, which can be good, but it's nowhere close to standing up to the theory of evolution in terms of what we think we know and it's a lie to say that it does.

Acendar
"rather then to allow my philosophical views to warp the way I view science"
I think that the point that bagpipes100 and halflife1 are trying to make is that science(naturalism) is a philosophical view, and they would argue that your philosophical view affects how you perceive the world around you.

How do we know that the world truly is knowable? We believe that it is knowable because we have observed it behaving in a regular, predictable way. Can you concede that perhaps there is some part of the cosmos that is not knowable? Because it seems to me that if you cannot concede on that point, then you are binding yourself entirely to naturalism. What then do you do if confronted by something extraordinary? You relegate it to hallucinations, folk tales, self deception and lies. You might be right to do so. However, in so doing, you have closed your mind to any possibility of evidence for the supernatural. At that point, I would say that your philosophical views are warping your understanding of reality.

I am not arguing against healthy skepticism. My point is that each of us has a personal philosophy (worldview)that acts as a filter and explanation of the facts that we see. Perhaps the supernatural is a myth, a lie. Perhaps it is not. Those who believe the myth will find evidence they need. Those who do not believe the myth will remain incredulous that their otherwise intelligent peers refuse to change their perspective.

Last time I checked, this is for science class. Not politics. So stop bringing politics into it. Science is not set in stone and it's supposed to be criticized by all. It should be looked at from all angles. To stop discussions about it and say "this is how it is, learn it" is absolutely wrong and against what science is supposed to be.

wcbpolish,

I agree that there are parts of the cosmos (and the oceans, and ever our own bodies) that are not known, and likely will never be known by human kind, but I see no reason why (assuming we don't blow ourselves up) we one day won't "know" or at least think we know it all. I do not believe there is a force keeping us from knowing things. We know we don't know everything and that the means by which we know anything at all are subject to change and biases.

Philosophy is the way each of us deals with "the big picture", but if you're trying to make an argument that understanding our world through science and religion are equal in terms of which is "truthier", as far as we can test, observe, reason, and theorize on the basis of the tangible, science > religion.

People choose where on this bell curve of ideas they feel comfortable viewing existence from. Think about mathematics. Mathematics (not dealing on the quantum level... whole nother discussion that admittedly I am not adequately educated) is more or less what science bases it's self on as it's essentially the closest thing to a bed-rock truth we have to work with. Now take one of these "bed-rock" equations that we've used to base our further understanding of other ideas on, if tomorrow aliens descended down upon us and, after sharing their knowledge with us, we had a new understanding of Pi it would be begin a revolution in the mathamatical world. Understanding of logarithms and continued fractions, imaginary numbers and periodic functions would all be thrown outta whack - and science would mold and form to these new understandings. Science and scientists who succeed at practicing it with limited personal bias would welcome these new ideas with excitement. Now how would the Church approach the arrival of an advanced alien race? How would Jesus or Mohammed continue to be the saviors of the race? I have no idea, but they would. The Church would be unable to do away with their traditional understanding of "the way it is", this is something repeated over and over in history and we can see it again in its need to back a version of science that most agree is extremely flawed.

Is it possible that in 1827 angels actually came to Joseph Smith and reviled to him golden plates only able to be read with magic glasses (all of which disappeared), sure it is. Is it further possible that these plates held Truth and Jesus actually did come to the Americas after his death and ascension, sure it's possible. And now if we don't strictly follow the teachings of Joseph Smith and his rewritten KJV Bible & Book of Mormon that we will all face eternal damnation - that is also possible... but at what point do we stop and think.... "gee..reason would indicate this is all total bullshit"? The same goes for all religions and using these teachings to forward the way we interact with each other is flawed and dangerous.

I do think there are things that science can't touch... but don't know it. But I recognize this feeling as just that - it's a feeling, possibly just a hope reflected by some desire to be more than I am.

You all love to revel in the prospects of your perceptions of knowledge & dare I say, truth.

The truth is, our truth & knowledge is subjective & thus jaded
according to our preferences & inclinations not to mention the fact that the powers of our intellect are woefully deficient to grasp the complexities that surround us in the environment in which we find ourselves. The bible rightly says that the vast magnitude of our complex environment in & of itself should cause mankind to realize there must exist an intelligent creator that is responsible for it all to the extent that we are without excuse if we say there is no God.

God has told us that know we can only know in part but "then" we shall know fully. Now we only see in a mirror dimly but then face to face. To put it another way, now the very best we can do is make visual observations , as it were, & then only through a cloudy mirror. This is a figure of speech meant to indicate that man cannot & will not ever know that much concerning himself or his environment other then some basically superficial observations.

Sure man has made some notable advancements in a few thousand years but lest we get too proud we should consider that though we are more intelligent than animals & many people are at a higher level of intellect than other humans it is foolish to make such comparisons when what we should do is compare ourselves to God Himself who is the embodiment of wisdom, knowledge & power. I mean come on, can you walk through walls or upon water, can you know the thoughts or intents of the hearts & minds of others, or be raised from he dead ? Can you create something from nothing ? If not, I would say the only safe thing, the only logical & intelligent thing to do, considering our very short life spans is to search out for the One who is infinitely greater than us. Look to Him for your wisdom & your security before it's too late. I am of above average intelligence & I am fearful at the prospects that I must rely upon men like me for the totality & summation of my short term existence.

I would ask all to at least consider what I say so that you also can have the same hope that I have for a better & lasting existence in God’s eternal dwelling place.

As for the fellow who says I must be drinking Kool-aid, well I admit I am drinking something but it is far better than anything you can experience in this world. I hope that all might taste what I have & stop reveling in this foolish sub-existence in which we find ourselves.

You think intelligence & technological advancements are the answer to human kind? Do you think these are the answers to the issues the world is facing today? Well, just take an objective look at our advanced civilizations in the world today. Are we more secure from wars (see N. Korea, Iran & etc), how about being more safe in our own neighborhoods, how about even going to public places without the prospects of getting shot from some disgruntled fellow human being? Are our food & water supplies safe & secure? What about our energy supplies? And what about the goodness of our society? Do we find a higher degree of quality of life there with our advancements? You know the answers to these questions.

The only hope we have is in the return of the One who is our creator & savior & soon to be, our King. You’ll see, one way or the other.

holyman,

I feel there is no other way to convey this than to simply say it: How can any objective mind actually take serious your opinions, even tho well written, when based entirely on a book written by many men over the course of many years, translated hundreds of times, interpreted thousands of ways and predicting how very near the "end times" are every day for the past two thousand years (and "everyday is like a thousands years to the Lord" is a cop-out)? I am not trying to be mean to you but if spending years of time around "hard-core", yet "moderate" (literal interpretation of Bible) religious people (and being one of them myself for some time) has taught me anything it's that they can justify ANYTHING using the "good book". The entirety of your argument is based around the idea that this text is in some way divine. This is something you have to take on faith, it's the way your philosophy works, which is fine, as long as you don't feed it to the children of our community in the confines of our public school system and call it science.

I never thought I'd be "that guy" publicly going after religious ideas, and I do not consider myself an Atheist, but I've come to believe that choosing to close your eyes and "believe" in something based on bronze aged texts is the epitome of silly. There's a reason we no longer believe ideas developed during that period of time. No one would argue the earth is flat, so why still believe personal God crafted everything and needs/wants our praise? Fear of the unknown + realization of our mortality = a powerful tool for manipulation of the masses.

Acendar,

You say" How can any objective mind actually take serious your opinions". I find this quite peculiar seeing as how you refer to having an "objective mind". I would think an objective mind would at least consider all things & never rest until it reached an ABSOLUTE conclusion.

My point all along is that this is not simply a matter of the "mind". It is a matter of the heart. Even the bible says that with the "heart" man believes. The heart is the composite of the whole man & is an accurate picture if you will , of just who & what each person is. It is the very core of his individual personality. From it flow the issues of his life. This determines the complete disposition & propensities of the man. The heart is the element of man which determines if he becomes a Hitler or a Billy Graham, a believer or an unbeliever.

God’s message & appeal to men expose the very hearts of all men. It is logical therefore, that God's message & appeal is not simply based upon the intellect but rather the very core being of the person. If the appeal were to the intellect, only the intelligent could be saved, if it were to the emotional, only the most emotional would be saved, if it appealed to a very narrow & superficial part of man it would not be right or just. Rather it appeals to the heart of mankind so that the very core of each individual is tried & revealed many , many times over during the course of one’s life.

Couldn’t God just manifest Himself fully as being God & put on a public display of His powers to “make” people believe? Of course He could but that would not accomplish His goal. His goal is to sift the wheat. All mankind are sinners & rebellious in nature to Him. He simply makes an appeal to those who have the capacity & propensity of heart to respond to that appeal. The appeal that I speak of BTW, is administered through His Spirit in a definite & deliberate way to each individual. It is always an individual choice. It would be a great mistake to make this choice solely by what can or cannot be proven to exist within the narrow context of the limited powers of the soul & body. Or to put it another way, to conclude that one should only “believe” what can detect with his natural senses of taste, touch, sight, hearing & smell. As I’ve said before, these are limited in scope & reach because they are confined to the natural realm or environment. These natural senses cannot sense God because He exists in the realm of the spiritual. As He says, “ that which is born of the flesh is flesh & that which is born of the spirit is spirit”. The two are quite distinct & are of different dimensions.

It’s not therefore, a matter of tangible or quantifiable evidence for the mind of man to grasp. Demons believe in God but do not honor Him. Jesus said that even if a man came back from the dead to tell his family that God was real they still would not believe in & accept Him.

Simply put, it is a matter of the heart. Jesus also said, “those who are OF God will respond to God” ( my paraphrase) and also that “My sheep hear My voice & they follow Me”. This is a plain indication that those who are of God will “hear” His message & respond favorably to it. Those who make up reasons & excuses not to respond rightly will not ever hear or see. All the reasons & excuses you suggest I’m afraid are just that, reasons & excuses to justify in your mind NOT to believe. Again, I hope all will respond in a favorable way to God’s appeal.

Peace to all who can receive it.

Acendar,

You keep making distinctions where there are none. You keep trying to make this an issue of science vs. religion. Where in fact it goes back farther than that. It is a matter of the paradigms people start in. Science occurs within these paradigms, but the creationists paradigm does science and comes to one conclusion, and the evolutionary paradigm comes to another. The mindset you seem to say religious people have, and the mindset you present yourself to have about evolution are strikingly similar. So you might consider re-evaluating how you understand what religion is.

"Evolution Science" is pure voodoo. Why does it get a different treatment than any other superstition. An Evolutionary Scientist is a witch doctor. Five minutes is a room full of physicists will prove that. If you want to believe that mumbo-jumbo that is your business. You will not be teaching it to my children!

Acendar:
I think that perhaps we can agree to disagree, and I would be happy to do so. I still believe, and will continue to believe, that a person can do science in the paradigm of evolution as well as in the paradigm of creationism, and that they will on most matters (especially the important ones) reach the same scientific conclusions (although they might disagree about the ethical application of those conclusions). I have appreciated most of what you have written- you and others on here have been iron to sharpen my mental iron. In my worldview, you lack a certain indwelling, without which we cannot never truly come to agreement.
I am sorry that you find yourself in the situation that you describe: "I never thought I'd be "that guy" publicly going after religious ideas," but I recognize that if I were an evolutionist, I would be just as vocal, perhaps more so, to defend my side of the issue. There is a very strong internal consistency in pure naturalism. It seems that you have spent time considering your decision, and that you are reasonably convinced that your odds of winning the grand wager are good enough.

holyman:
"It’s not therefore, a matter of tangible or quantifiable evidence for the mind of man to grasp."
"debates over science are of very little concern or value"

Please do not take this as insult. If you truly feel that this is the case, I think that perhaps your time might be better spent praying for the souls of those on this discussion board. Perhaps they (we) have souls that are hardened by the LORD, just as Pharaoh's heart was. It's clear that the unregenerate cannot believe without hearing, and we cannot hear without a preacher. How beautiful are your feet. Yet, your conversations have become repetitive. Do you think that you will be better recieved because of your much typing? Your points are made. Your conscience is clear. You have fulfilled what is required of you: shake the dust from your sandals and move on.

wcbpolish,

Thanks for your considerate comments & admonition. The reason however for my repetition is that comments from others repeatedly missed my point compelling me to reiterate in an attempt to bring light to the point in fact. Plus, I wish to rebut , if you will, all the bantering which could miss-lead marginal or fence straddling “readers” who are not posting. I hardly think a few or even many words are going to immediately change anyone’s heart posting here. It can however plant a seed which may take root.

I will grant your request however & refrain from posting further on this blog unless it is requested by another.

Gravity is a widely accepted scientific theory. Evolution is also a theory that is beginning to be more and more accepted. You don't want your kids to study evolution and gain more knowledge, then fine. They'll grow up to be just as ignorant as you, jisom@usa.com.

I would like to spend more time posting thoughts and continuing our conversation as I'm greatly enjoying it. Unfortunately I've just joined the 8.5% of Americans in the governments reserve workforce, so will be spending more time writing resumes and less time posting here :(

After reading the several post directed towards me, and as I've had no time to reply they've sat with me for a few days, and while I can't directly say "due to this I now feel this", I can say I've decided that I actually "believe" in science. It may mean nothing or everything but I've never thought of understanding science as needing a belief system. I will continue to dwell on this and hopefully post further about it.

Bagpipes100,

Assuming I understand your post correctly, I disagree. Point of view does make a difference... but you can't logically argue that our scientific understanding of gravity or surface tension doesn't work because the Bible tells of Jesus ascending in the air or walking on water. These are things that we take as 'concreate' and in doing so our societies are bettered. Occasionally science runs into hurdles that they have to explain (air pockets creating turbulence on an airplane) but they observe, test and use the very best logical reasoning to explain it. This often times does not produce the end result those doing the testing would like to see... but even tho it doesn't coincide with their ideals or philosophy, they report on what evidence has shown them. I could go on for hours on how organized religion is more or less the opposite of this.

wcbpolish,

I've appreciated the ideas you've put forth. I have taken a hard line here in this forum, and I believe what I've said, but it's also had a tinge of 'devils advocate' in it as I've felt a bit outnumbered with little support other than "you people are stupid for believing in things outside of science" posts. I'll also admit that I do have a bias towards the Church and therefor organized religion in general. I feel my experiences were not necessarily outside of the mainstream, I wasn't raised in a cult or anything too nutty, and this is actually what bothers me most. These are normal people striving for something better... but they get caught up in 'believing' and 'praising' and forget to think for themselves. Which brings me to

holyman,

I am asking you to continue posting. I've disagreed with most everything you've said and feel that it all has been written from a very narrow world view based entirely on the Bible and traditional church beliefs, but that doesn't mean I don't read what you've said. Trying to listen to perspectives that I disagree with so entirely can be frustrating... but that's the beauty of the intelligent discussion that I first posted about last week. If you can read my ideas word for word and at least try and think outside your box... I will attempt to think outside of mine.

Will try and make it back to post but time has gotten tight. I LOVE this stuff, think about it falling asleep and on and off throughout the day, so if anyone would like to continue I made an e-mail just for this: usedforthreads@hotmail. Hope to be back soon.

Acendar,

We seem to be having alot of fun missing what each other is saying. I am not, nor (I think anyway) have I argued on here that we ought to give up what sceince tells us is true. I wouldn't question everything we know about gravity or surface tension. And I am frequently puzzled as to why evolutionists like to bring such things up. The axioms used for those things are common to both creationist and evolutionists. However, there are other axioms which the two groups do not hold in common. And so science gives different results to each group.

Do you at least see that I am trying to make a distinction here? That science and evolution are not the same thing. that what you get from sceince depends on what you initially assume? You may get evidence for evolution from science, but that is only when you have also added to sceince a certain set of initial assumptions. And if you change those initial assumptions you will get different results. Do you see how this could work?

Thanks for the continued interest though. It's made for interesting study breaks.

Bagpipes100,

You've explained your point well. I believe I now understand it better and I agree. I was taken up in "debate" mode and missed falling right into that. Taking a step back I completely agree that "that science and evolution are not the same thing." and initial assumptions.

Then I guess what I've been trying to say is, that there are two primary ways people who need to, tend to explain their world. In my opinion science says "we're here, lets use what we have to try and figure out why/how we are here and how can we make our experience better." and religion says "We are here because God put us here and we must abide by what the traditional holy text of our specific cultures states or forgo rewards/reep consequences ." Science is doubtful, so when we "know" something, it's because we humans put forth our best and placed all of our efforts to get it right in terms of mathematics, and we understand this is all we really CAN know. Religion views the world as controlled. This leads to assumptions based on tradition and eventually power as it takes the shape of a social structure. At its core, religion has something to prove while science does not.

I say that because it comes back to my "belief" in science as a better way to advance the human race. We can play the lotto and hope we've prayed to the correct God or actively work to a better future for our spices. Isn't that truly what a God who made us in its image would want anyway?

I do read the other “competent” posts like yours word for word with an open mind in terms of making considerations of the thoughts.

Actually, I am not exactly what you’d call mainstream Christian. I actually do “think” for myself & first began thinking “outside the box” as you say when I began to seriously read the bible. After my conversion in my teens (and no, my parents were not religious) I was awakened in such a way I cannot describe. Unfortunately, I attended a traditional church & learned the same old dead teachings that have been keeping Christians from the truth for centuries now. The Lord placed a deep hunger in me to study the bible so I began to do just that, sometimes reading the New Testament through as much as once per week. I began to see some inconsistencies with what was written & what was being taught & practiced which bothered me. Something struck me at some point in my pursuit of truth as being very curious in regards to the traditional religious establishment & how they were adamantly opposed to Jesus, to the point of killing the One whom they were supposedly looking for as their King ! How could this possibly happen? This is a question which I could not shake & perhaps even more importantly was the question…could that same thing possibly happen today with the “traditional religious establishment” ? I came to the shockingly disturbing conclusion that yes it could & in fact, am convinced that it is happening. I can certainly understand why some people are involved with Christianity & don’t seem to get anything out of it.

I have to say of course that sense these things are spiritual one has to be born a second time to have this spiritual sense in which he can even relate to all things spiritual. Having established that fundamental fact however, there is a striking divergence that then takes place for Christians in which one actually becomes transformed into the image of Christ whereas the majority remain in an almost comatose state spiritually. This is indeed very tragic. If you recall the parable of the sower & the seed there are two types of Christian ; one matures to produce spiritual fruit & the other does not. The latter just merely exists until it dies while the other functions PROPERLY. There is a book entitled “The Normal Christian Life’ by Watchman Nee which more thoroughly details what I am talking about for those who are interested.

Why am I saying all this ? Because, unless one has the opportunity to meet & experience a properly functioning Christian, you cannot accurately “judge” or ascertain precisely just what a Christian actually is. Most of us have only experienced the raw, undeveloped Christian which many times is quite detestable, to be honest. As for me ? Well, I can only say I am somewhere in between but absolutely on the journey towards a proper functioning.

Now, in all honesty have you ever heard said the kinds of things I just briefly touched upon? I doubt it because after many, many years in the traditional churches I never heard these things. The average Christian today is precisely misguided just like the Pharisees were 2000 years ago. How could this be ? The reason is very fundamental yet very profound. The heart (and not the MIND) is the virtual key that unlocks the proverbial door to the TRUTH ! Because our hearts are 100% transparent before the Lord He cannot be fooled by our words. We can say we seek the truth for example, we can earnestly & diligently search it out but not until we are absolutely willing to accept IT, will He reveal it. This may sound weird but it’s almost as if you have to be of the same constitution as the truth in order for it to be revealed to you. Acceptance & revelation go hand in hand, you might say. On a rudimentary scale, it is much like a parent telling a child, “I will give you something of great value only when I know you will use it properly & responsibly”. Ever heard the saying, “You cannot handle the truth” ?

The Pharisees searched the scriptures for the truth & yet could not see the TRUTH even when the very embodiment of truth stood & spoke before them. This is what we should all be seeking above & besides all else…LIFE & TRUTH & the very way to these! That’s why I do not have much interest in evolution or other such matters. In the light of the actual TRUTH these kind of things become quite trivial by comparison. It’s kind of like two people looking at a new car for the first time. One wants to analyze the car in every detail. The other wants to drive & experience the car. I prefer the latter. Even if you discovered every detail of everything there is to know about the car you still would not have experienced the very purpose of the car which is to drive it.

That’s how I see this topic in a nut shell. Intellects want to debate over scientific observations & theories while I want to seek out the very “meaning of life” & experience it.

Acendar,

Ok, glad we’re tracking a little better now. Here’s my next thought. How exactly does science make our experience better, or advance the human race? It tells us how things are. But I’m not sure that it motivates us in any specific direction. Knowing where you are doesn’t say anything about where you should go. Science alone doesn’t give any goals to strive for. To advance, would require some standard, or reference point from which you could judge how you are moving, not just that you are moving.

One of the reasons that I peg evolutionists for being religious (though often unknowingly) is this; that they talk about how we can better ourselves as humans, or that we need to have such and such a relation with the earth, etc. But, if they are really only using science, and only are able to see what is, then there isn’t a way to form an idea of what ought to be. You have to have some definition of what ‘good’ is. What is evolution but certain groups of a chaotic and dynamic system temporarily finding a bit of stability, only to have the environment change and they loose that. And in the end, if one group is eliminated, the system still moves on and continues. If evolution is good because it helps us survive, then what makes surviving good? Embedded in the paradigm that most evolutionists work in are desires,(undefined and often unacknowledged)for these things. But I have yet to see how one would attempt to come up with these motovations purely from the observation of what is (which is the unsaid claim).

Some people say that evolution is a leap of faith because of how complex DNA is, but here's the thing, the is such a thing as a peptide they found one that self replicates, it is only 32 amino acids long, too long to happen by chance eh? then people say "oh well the chance of that happening is less then one in a billion," indeed quite true however some what misleading because if the chance is one in a billion and you have trillions of reactions happening each year, and you have a billion years or so, it is pretty much guaranteed to happen... assume that there are one trillion reactions happening each year, and you have a billion years, that is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that is one sextillion or a 1 followed by 27 zeros, lets divide that by 100 billion, that still gives you 100,000,000,000 copies of it, 100 billion isn't bad...

next we have "E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project" site link http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ for those of you with some training in biology or even someone who paid attention in bio class, you will very likely find this satisfactory.

. knowledge-is-pro

The problem with your proposition is that this is an occurrence which is happening in an already existent environment which contains LIFE.

How about a mathematical equation for life popping up into existence from which there was no life or matter to begin with. It's also illogical that two forms of dead matter could collide & somehow form LIFE.

Another thing that is conveniently left out in these discussions is the existence of the peculiar soul-LIFE in us human beings. Did this happen by accident ?

No ! It exists strictly because LIFE begets LIFE. Life exists today because Life created it, & that Life continues to maintain it's existence. All things were created by Him & for Him & without Him nothing was created . And also it is written that all things are held together by Him

Bagpipes100,

I agree that the primary result of practicing science is to tell us 'how things are'. And as a result of most of this study, we as a spices are continuing to better our circumstances. This is the means by which I believe we can judge our advancement. By this I mean, throughout most of the world the random human is living a healthier longer and happier life right now then it lived in the past. Now we can all point to world events that are widely covered by the media but keep in mind that given the recorded history we have... this is still quite a sizable advancement. Please understand I attest this to the study of both the hard and soft sciences and it is a very general. A person does not have to be religious (at least by my understanding of the terminology) to want their society to be a better place where less are hungry and more have time to peruse activities outside eat/sleep.

This desire to understand why we are here in the first place is something built into our conscious and unconscious minds. Maybe it's a tool used by the evolutionary process, maybe it's something planted by a designer. From the viewpoint of the former, there really is no 'why?' that we can currently answer by means of how we've 'answered' other mysteries of our physical universe, so it's possible that we'll never know so let's keep surviving as we search. Those viewing from the latter may argue that not knowing is unacceptable. People seem to successfully and unsuccessfully meet this need for spirituality with various activities, practicing with a religious organization being the most common. These extra-survival activities we use to comfort and guide ourselves are many times beautiful and exemplify that we need more than just health and wealth to feel fulfilled. But naturally these ideas are carried by humans, humans come together to form social structures and with that inevitably comes corruption. It doesn't bother me the means by which a person chooses to fulfill their longing for 'something greater' as long as they don't allow their striving for spirituality to be a detriment to how others fulfill themselves.

Acendar,

How do you define 'better'? If longer lives and 'happier' lives are 'good'. Then you need to have a scientific reason why. Also you need to have a scientific way of defining 'good'.

But what I suspect is that the notion of 'good', and 'better', is going to be somewhat like Euclid's parallel postulate in that you won't be able to derive it from the other axioms, and that it can be swapped out with other notions of what parallel means and still have a (as far as anyone has ever figured out) consistant geometry.

"It doesn't bother me the means by which a person chooses to fulfill their longing for 'something greater' as long as they don't allow their striving for spirituality to be a detriment to how others fulfill themselves."

The statement initially sounds reasonable, and ideal. But It is self contradictory. Because the moment that someone accepts a paradigm which nessecitates them to alter how others fulfill themselves, that ideal then must stop that person, which is a contradiction of itself.

Bagpipes100,

I'll go ahead and define "good" and "better" in terms of our conversation as simply: more people being in less pain and experiencing more pleasure in life. It's the idea that we don't KNOW what else there is to live for, instead of following stories from long ago which carry with them huge amounts of hurtful baggage. Most every person I've ever known has been able to be empathetic. This is what causes us to yearn for the betterment of each other. I honestly hope that people who read my posts are bettered by it in one way or another, and as I read decenting opinions I hope that they will enrich my life and and maybe bring me closer to Truth.

I feel as though you're asking me to define these things from a Godlike point of view, and I refuse, because as far as we 'know' there is no such point of view.

As far as my quoted statement above goes, I believe that it is sound and this is why. From the point of view of someone (anyone) who is associated with a religious institution, the idea of fulfilling ones self runs hand and hand with bringing others to the same fulfillment. Example: a Christian witnessing in order to bring others to the same place (salvation) as they are. This point of view is based on the idea that one MUST influence others to live as they do in order to be fulfilled. I disagree as I believe this idea has originated from social institutions originally based on fulfillment that have (many times) unknowingly become self-sustaining social structures.

I love astronomy. Gazing at a distant galaxy, nebula or even planet fills me with awe and wonder and makes my "soul" long for greater understanding. I'd love to gather with others who are bewildered by the same means and together discuss, but I'm not going to go out and start claiming that those who're ignorant of these things are destined to an eternity of pain. In my opinion this is exactly what established religions have done/are doing.

holyman,

I really enjoyed your last post. As far as I understand it is the first one that didn't base the entirety of it's reasoning on Biblical text, which in my opinion gives it credit.

You're right. As far as we know 'LIFE begets LIFE", I've no way of arguing against that. This is, as far as I can tell, the greatest argument towards some form of designer that we can come to. I believe in the evolutionary process, but have trouble with how it all started. The idea that at some point slime + slime = something 'alive' is difficult to accept, and I don't fully. But just because we don't understand how life arose doesn't mean that we HAVE to pick an ancient understanding of how in order to feel comfortable about our existence.

I'm open to all ideas about the how the "how" happened. Maybe a designer sparked the first lifeforms and then went on to do... whatever. Maybe aliens came across a planet ripe to plant life on and sprinkled some "life" seeds in the water. Maybe some completely random chemical interaction took place that we've yet to understand and we're all just very very very luck to be here at all. I don't know. I just hope people will take a step back from what they think they know and be open to the idea that human history is packed full of us getting things wrong without the man-made idea of post-death pain for disagreeing with the majority.

Acendar:
Clarifications:
1. Good and better mean less pain and more pleasure?
2. Is a "good" thing one which alleviates the suffering of many, even if it causes pain for others? (meaning, does the net result need to be less pain and more pleasure, or does it need to result in less pain and more pleasure for everyone involved)
3. It sounds like you are ascribing to hedonism. Would I be wrong in assuming this?

wcbpolish,

What I'm attempting to argue is that the overall measurement of how we've advanced as a spices can be seen in the general well being of our members. If it were possible to poll and measure the overall well-being of each life today I believe that it would be significantly higher than it was in 2000 BC, and this is due to our greater understanding of the world around us and each other. So the greater good should be measured by what brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest amount of people without causing undue suffering for others. This is the basic idea and of course there will be situations where one could philosophize over just where the line is. We're far from perfect.

My use of 'good' and 'pleasure' should not be understood as 'basking in pleasures' but rather a general lack of suffering. Am not arguing hedonism in that more people should be engaging in daily orgies and rampant drug use but rather the more people who aren't hungry and sick and are therefore able to devote time and energy to education and socialization. So yes, you'd be incorrect that I'm ascribing to that idea.

Ok... I think I understand your point. Let me attempt to make one:
Assumptions

1: Moving toward better standard of living is good.
2: Better standard of living means less disease, less hours spent laboring to survive, among other factors.
3: Agriculture was a scientific revolution (new way of understanding and manipulating nature)
4: Pastoralism (agriculture) introduced zoonotic disease such as smallpox, anthrax, and birdflu to humans (more disease, undue suffering)
5: Individuals must work longer hours in agriculture based societies than in hunter-gatherer societies in order to provide food for their families (more time laboring, undue suffering)
6: Agriculture leads to erosion, land degradation, and famine (less health, undue suffering)

Conclusion: In this case, science did not lead to good.

Let me try another one:

Assumptions:

1: Moving toward better standard of living is good.
2: Better standard of living means less disease, less hours spent laboring to survive, among other factors.
3: Development of our modern petrochemical society was a scientific revolution (new way of understanding and manipulating nature)
4: Burning fossils fuels for energy production has created health problems such as coal lung, acid rain, and various other emissions (more disease, undue suffering)
5: Many of the petrochemicals utilized for non-fuel have created persistent endocrine disruptors, affecting gender determination in animal populations, fertility of humans, and numerous other problems (more disease, undue suffering)
6: Human dependence on oil-based economies are affecting world food prices, as we choose to pursue biofuels which utilize food to make fuel(famine, undue suffering)

Conclusion: In this case, science did not lead to good.

Conclusion of the conclusions: Science does solve problems, but in each case it opens up new problems. Are we really that much better off than 2000 BC? Technology allows us new ways to communicate, but do we really have greater understanding of each other? Yes, we certainly understand the world better, but often we use that understanding to find new ways to hurt ourselves (knowingly or unknowingly).

You did say that:
"This is the basic idea and of course there will be situations where one could philosophize over just where the line is. We're far from perfect."
and I guess that I did choose to pick situations to philosophize that fit my framework. But I feel that I picked the two major revolutions in humanity's history... and both of them have led to much distress- perhaps more distress than wellbeing.

Please do not take this as personal affront. I am enjoying testing my mettle here on this discussion board. I enjoy the dialog. Acendar... did you get my email? I tried to email you at the usedforthreads@hotmail. The article I sent was just a conversation starter... I was gonna see where it went from there. I would be happy to get off this discussion board: every time I open this page I get some message about unresponsive script and it sometimes freezes my computer up.

Acendar,

I’m not sure I see a logical reason for pulling vague notions of ‘good’ and ‘better’ out of thin air (even if they do bring pleasure and less pain) over following some ‘stories from long ago’. If either can be used to form a consistent set of axioms then one doesn’t have the advantage over the other. And as has been pointed out before, it is no good trying to disprove one paradigm with the axioms of another, which seems to be your argument about social structures. You argue against religious institutions (Christianity in particular) based on a set of assumptions in the paradigm from which you come from (that these religious institutions were made up as people evolved). It would be better to have pointed out an internal inconsistency in Christianity (or what ever ‘religious’ institution you choose) in order to reject it. And if such an internal inconsistency cannot be found, then I guess it comes down to what you will choose to believe. It won’t be a matter of one thing being more reasonable than another (though it is hard to get far enough out of your own chosen paradigm to do this….at least I know I have trouble doing it). You choose, and what will happen, will happen.

Now this is a little off the topic of if creationism or ID should be taught in school (which so far the discussion seems to have lead to that if origins at all should be taught, then evolution isn’t the only valid scientific side of the coin that needs to be taught). But your comment about astronomy got me to thinking back to some training in Christianity I’ve had. I think it was King David who wrote “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that you visit him?” and in another psalm, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world.” So yeah, you wouldn’t be the only one to sit and watch the stars and be in awe and wonder. I used to be an astronomy lab assistant while in undergrad. I was stinkin’ sweet, because I got to take the telescopes out when ever I wanted to, so my friends and I had all sorts of fun starting at various planets and such and just getting to enjoy it all.

Prehaps talking about an eternity of pain is unpalatable, but can you prove that those ‘established religions’ are false (and we are talking internal consistency here, since out side axioms from other paradigms don’t have any weight inside a paradigm with which they are not accepted)? It’s a matter of choice. There is truth, and each one of us has to choose what we think is true, and depending on what we choose there may or may not be consequences….it all depends on what actually turns out to be true. Though I will admit I tend to think a little more along the lines of the apostle Paul when he wrote “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
Doom, gloom, wrath and all that jazz, I know, but that’s only part of the story. Granted me saying that the more I study creation the more I see God’s hands working in it only strengthens my argument internally. It probably does nothing to convince you, being that you don’t accept the initial assumptions that brought me to see things that way. Fair enough, but perhaps some day while you’re kickin’ back having a lemonade in the sunshine somewhere, put down your paradigm and pick up one like this one and consider what it would mean to hold to it.

But like I said, that’s a bit off topic for this post, I got on here to show that evolution isn’t the only consistent scientific explanation of origins, and that science can go one perfectly with other initial assumptions chosen. If you want to continue that other conversation, just let me know and I’ll leave an e-mail addy for ya or something.

The problem with high school is that students take one biology class. Ideally, following biology, one could take a year long class in Palentology, with a large measure of evolution to be discussed. But there isn't time for that.

Of course, they do discuss those things on the college level, but there, one can take a dozen classes in biology, or a dozen classes in anthropology or paleontology, or both.

In high school only an overview is possible. Also, the "weaknesses etc." suggestion appears to be fairly specific, and the article didn't tell us specifically what was in it. If it had, it might curl our hair to see what propoganda these religious fringe folks are trying to foist on our children, at taxpayer expense.

I suggest they teach that class in their churches, where they are free to say whatever they like. And if there is a Catholic church, or a Presbyterian church, or a Methodist church, or a synagogue that doesn't want to teach that, would they say that those folks are dumber than themselves? Or that their differing positions are simply in error, and should be overcome? So maybe if they can't grab the kids in church, they can grab them in the public schools, where their Methodist, etc. parents can't resist?

Each one of us has given the right on what to believe. For me it doesn't matter if your a Christian or what. As long as you're not affecting or should i say hurting others feelings. Just like the issue regarding racism. Instead of making such issue, why not help each other do their best to bring goodness to the people? Some people just have too much time on their hands which is how someone came up with this Obama witch doctor business. A bunch of conservative activists from the northern Midwest, specifically from Brighton, Michigan were so bored that they have started calling President Obama a witch doctor. Glenn Beck probably loves it, but then again, Beck tends to love all kinds of stupid and racist things, and tends to hate just about anything that does anyone any good. Defenders of conservative causes love to claim that they have no racist tendencies, it's just the lunatic fringe – and there is some truth to that, but they don't do themselves any favors with this kind of crap. Instead of the Obama witch doctor stuff, perhaps they should have gotten pay day loans and a hobby. see, http://personalmoneystore.com/payday-loans/pay-day-loans/.