Comments

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?

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.

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. ;-)

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.

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?