Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I thought about that a lot; does that make sense and/or illustrate my point to you?

Okay, now you've lost me. What is your point?

~Eärniel the stupid~

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Okay, now you've lost me. What is your point?

Her point is that you can't just keep adjusting your theory to fit the evidence, but if there is enough evidence to the contrary, you should be willing to scrap your theory and start another, one that fits all, or at least almost all of the evidence.

Originally posted by Dunadan
Of course, you can never disprove religious belief scientifically, which is why it's nothing to do with science and why it's a red herring to demand that we attempt to.

There is a difference in the Bible between religious belief and historical data. The Bible has a large mingling of both, however the Old Testament is full of historical information. This information is largely questioned by science, and believed by most, because current scientific views run against it, to be myth. Current scientific views cannot be taken as a basis for disproving or proving the Bible, as they alter. You have to be willing to work from a Biblical perspective, assuming the Bible to be true, to find out whether or not it is correct.

I'm not saying that science can prove the existence of God, miracles, or things that cannot be discerned by the physical realm. You might find evidence of all of these if you are looking from a Biblical perspective, but the point that I'm looking at now is the historical validity of the Bible.

[Rían]

to: Eärniel the most definitely NOT stupid

from : RÃ*an, the sometimes too wordy when trying to explain her thoughts on complicated subjects

Yes, Lief somehow managed to wade through my verbiage and get my point, and I like how he stated it, so I'll quote him:

Lief Erikson's interpretation of RÃ*an's lengthy posts:
Her point is that you can't just keep adjusting your theory to fit the evidence, but if there is enough evidence to the contrary, you should be willing to scrap your theory and start another, one that fits all, or at least almost all of the evidence.

The reason that I wanted to bring that up is that it appears to me that when you use an argument like "well, ALL the data agrees with the TOE, because we adjust the theory when we find some data that doesn't agree with it", then why give it a name like TOE at all? Why not just call it "the theory as of (insert date,time) as to how the world got here". The TOE people are trying to defend the TOE!, NOT "the theory of (insert date,time)"! What I would like to know from them is which are the most basic tenets that, if new data contradicts them, would cause the entire TOE to be discarded and a new theory (with a new name, most probably) formulated? For obviously, given my alien race coming to Earth and showing how they made the earth example, adjusting the TOE so that it says "intelligent design is behind the creation of the earth" would make "theory of evolution" a nonsensical title!!

And BTW, I did see Draken say "amend or replace theories that no longer fit these data", and I was very glad to see it, because I don't think I've seen "replace" yet, just "amend". And there is a big difference. For, as in my little story, you can't make a cow out of a horse. Wouldn't you people agree that there is one correct answer out there for the question "how was the earth that we see today made?" And that if the TOE happens to be the horse, when the answer is a cow, that the TOE should be replaced when appropriate if new data comes up? (AND I'm NOT necessarily saying replaced by Intelligent Design theory!! I just want to see if the TOE people are willing to say that the entire TOE should be scrapped if certain basic elements of it are found to be wrong and it can't be adjusted without making the "evolution" part of the name totally inappropriate)

Well, another wordy post, let me know if it was too confusing again.

[Lief Erikson]

I don't have any trouble reading your posts, RÃ*an .

Originally posted by Dunadan
I think it's up to the creationists to justify why their beliefs should be taught as fact. Do you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, or is there be some room for interpretation? If so, who says when and where?

I agree that creationists ought to justify why their beliefs should be taught as fact, and I think that science is a useful tool for doing that (Outside of the spiritual side of things). Science has errors, but it is seeking the truth, and a lot has been discovered through it. However, I don't think that someone has any right to make judgements as to what is true or not true in the Bible, if they aren't willing to look at the Bible from the biblical model.

I think that when the Bible says something, there is truth in what it says. If it is too ambiguous and can be taken in different ways, then that's the brakes. But the Bible says most things plainly, and when it does, I think it is wrong to try to skew what it says to twist it to your own purposes. There is a line that is crossed when a person stops seeking the truth, and starts trying to conform the truth to fit what he or she wants it to be.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I don't have any trouble reading your posts, RÃ*an .

Yes, but English is your first language English is Eärniel's 3rd language - Flemish is #1 and Belgian chocolates is #2 ...

And I've been remiss in not welcoming a new poster, so let me fix that here - welcome, Methuselah, I hope you enjoy Entmoot. There are many interesting threads here, I hope you can find several that you like. If you are Lief's father, then I give you a double welcome! I've posted a lot with Lief and I like his posts. If you aren't Lief's father, then welcome anyway, and I hope you are lucky enough to have a nice and intelligent son like Lief someday. *heehee, I bet Lief is blushing!!! But it's true, I think you're nice and intelligent, Lief!*

[Cirdan]

Rian, I think your question is a bit open ended. I'll respond as I think appropriate for now. TOE (cute) is a framework for discovery, not a description of how things ought to be. FActs are open to interpretation on an individual basis, but that does not affect the theory itself. Only if there were facts that proved heredity and speciation didn't occur could the theory be discredited. All new discoveries only strengthen the specific knowledge of what has happened in the past.

I'm not sure about your "cow" question. I would say that what you describe is basically what has happened over the last ~200 years. Genetics has helped considerably, a well as an ever growing pool of research knowledge. It's not only required to question the zoological tree it's required. Sometimes it's appearance but it is more important to relate reproductive styles and internal physiology. That is why some dinosaurs have been moved from the reptile only branch to one that includes birds. It was the bone density and structure that first lead to the idea that there may be a connection. Bottom line is that nothing is written in stone and it is what works in the field that ultimately determines the order of things.

As to the aliens, I would hope they would also explain where they can from. If they evoled then the theory still holds. I've always allowed for deus ex machina as if everything was created to only appear as though it evolved. It's not very useful as a scientific principle since it renders analysis pointless. So, until the aliens or the second coming, analyzing the fossil record keeps geologists employed.

I do have a sense of humor but the isn't much about religion and science that's funny, which is why I only read the thread for so long. Didn't you like my chocolate fish?

[Rían]

I didn't agree with the way you used the analogy, but the analogy ITSELF gave me the shivers! (and a laugh ) UGH!! Chocolate fish! Bleh!

I'll respond in a day or two when I get my next block of quiet time - tomorrow is an all-day field trip to a planetarium (I love astronomy, luckily! Some field trips aren't so fun...)

[Methuselah]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Of course, you can never disprove religious belief scientifically, which is why it's nothing to do with science and why it's a red herring to demand that we attempt to.

Science doesn’t prove anything, and so, of course, it cannot disprove anything either. Proofs are mostly confined to the realm of mathematics where it is based first upon assumptions. Christians did much to oppose and alienate scientists and intellectuals during the early development of scientific discovery. Contention was especially strong in the late nineteenth century when Thomas Huxley championed the term "The Big Fight" describing the intellectual battle between God and evolution. Consequently, science has developed completely independently of Christianity (or any religion). I say this was a mistake (for the Church) because science cannot help but encroach upon biblical assertions. Therefore, there is great need for Christians to develop a biblical truth model in order to determine if scientific assertions really do contradict biblical assertions. Anyone who has objections to Christianity based solely upon scientific grounds should be interested in the development of such a model as well.

I believe that God’s Word is authoritative and without error. It is expressed both in his creation (God spoke when he created everything) and through revelation. That being said, people’s understanding of creation (scientific views) and of revelation (theology) are always incomplete and require continuous modification (we should always be learning). The Church was wrong in opposing Copernicus and Galileo, even though they based their arguments upon Scripture.

Let me give an example where scientific conclusions, formed independently of Christianity, should not be used to directly critique Christian belief. We know from science that radiocarbon dating shows continuous progression of many cultures over several tens of thousands of years while the biblical genealogies indicate a period of less than 600 years from the Flood to the time of Joseph. Given that the bible claims the flood covered the entire earth, we conclude that the bible must be wrong. However, if we look more closely at the radiocarbon dating, we find that it is based upon the assumption that the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere has remained relatively constant over the long tens of thousands of years as well. When Libby advanced his theory (and won a Nobel Prize), he asserted that a sudden change in radiocarbon could not occur without being noticed since radiocarbon levels would not reach equilibrium if they did. We know that over the last two thousand years, radiocarbon levels have been at equilibrium. This would be convincing except that since that time, scientists have measured the rate that radiocarbon is generated in the atmosphere and the amount of radiocarbon in the atmosphere. The rate that radiocarbon is generated is significantly higher than the rate at which it diminishes due to radioactive decay. Hence, radiocarbon leaves the atmosphere in significant quantity through other processes as well as through radioactive decay. Instead of requiring tens of thousands of years to reach equilibrium, it can reach equilibrium in a few thousand years. His proof was not vindicated by evidence. Scientists now rely upon tree ring dating to confirm (and adjust) the radiocarbon dating method. But only a few trees – those that can grow atop very tall mountains in extremely dry conditions – have the property that radiocarbon doesn’t seep through tree rings. These trees indicate that things are actually older than one might expect. However, if you actually did assume a global flood, then those trees would experience radiocarbon seepage at that point in history and also give the older dates that are observed.

What you have is this:
Valid scientific theory: the reasonable assumption that certain trees on tall mountains do not experience radiocarbon seepage implies tree-ring data generally supports radiocarbon dating, and that implies the long ages generally accepted as valid.
Invalid scientific conclusion: Therefore the global Flood of Genesis didn’t occur in the time frame mentioned (the problem is that the conclusion makes the whole chain of thought into circular logic).

Thank you for the warm welcome Rian. As Methuselah, I believe I have many descendants, but I will admit to being particularly pleased with Lief Erikson.

[Rían]

And I didn't mean to be cute with TOE, it's just how the initials worked out (and I got tired of typing the whole thing out, or typing th. of ev.).

What was rather funny to me was when you (I think it was you) first used ID for Intelligent Design (I suppose) - I thought you were referring to Freud at first!

And while I'm away on my field trip with a bunch of 6th graders, do you have any info for me on my reworded fossil record question?

[Rían]

Methuselah - oh, how nice! And welcome again. My oldest (boy)is 12 - really growing up fast. I also have a 7 and a 6 year old (another boy and a girl).

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Methuselah
Science doesn’t prove anything, and so, of course, it cannot disprove anything either. Proofs are mostly confined to the realm of mathematics where it is based first upon assumptions.

Of course your only referring to that one very limited definition of the word proof and mean no inference that science establish can't facts, right? It might be perceived otherwise.

...science has developed completely independently of Christianity (or any religion). I say this was a mistake (for the Church) because science cannot help but encroach upon biblical assertions.

It would require some kind of censorship by the church to regulate researchers not directly reporting to them. How would this have been imposed? The truth is that the church did do all it could to suppress information that contradicted the bible. The evolution of independent science was critical to the achievements we enjoy today. Limiting ideas to those that don't agree to the bible would lead to... less ideas.

Therefore, there is great need for Christians to develop a biblical truth model in order to determine if scientific assertions really do contradict biblical assertions. Anyone who has objections to Christianity based solely upon scientific grounds should be interested in the development of such a model as well.

Any scientist that would want to to research just to refute Christianity should find a new job. Christions that would want to be sure the bible was wrong would be disturbing. The only motive left is to cast doubt science that conflicts with the bible before it get to be accepted as fact.

The Church was wrong in opposing Copernicus and Galileo, even though they based their arguments upon Scripture.

There is nothing in the bible that predicts that the planets would appear to track a non-circular path. This is what lead to the copernican model of the solar system.

Let me give an example where scientific conclusions, formed independently of Christianity, should not be used to directly critique Christian belief. We know from science that radiocarbon dating shows continuous progression... [edit] ...give the older dates that are observed.

You seem to be discussing carbon 14 as is it naturally occurs separately from carbon 12. Other than radiodecay, they come and go in the atmospere in the same proportions. Nature doesn't segregate the two kinds of carbon. Variations in the atmospere limit the precision not the accuracy. You are finding same exceptions found in local areas and trying to apply them to all situations. Just what wood has been determined to be the ark? Some old wood doesn't make and ark no matter how old it is. The final problem is the total lack of geological evidence for a global flood. Human footprints in lava millions of years old can't be denied by worrying about radiocarbn dating.

Thank you for the warm welcome Rian. As Methuselah, I believe I have many descendants, but I will admit to being particularly pleased with Lief Erikson.

He's a good kid. He really looks up to you. You must be a good dad. I've got an eight year old son myself. It's a great adventure.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And I didn't mean to be cute with TOE, it's just how the initials worked out (and I got tired of typing the whole thing out, or typing th. of ev.).

What was rather funny to me was when you (I think it was you) first used ID for Intelligent Design (I suppose) - I thought you were referring to Freud at first!

And while I'm away on my field trip with a bunch of 6th graders, do you have any info for me on my reworded fossil record question?

I don't know if I should post a fossil history dissertation on line. I can email you some examples after I get a little sleep if you like. If there is a clamor for something I'll post, heck maybe I'll publish.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Yes, but English is your first language English is Eärniel's 3rd language - Flemish is #1 and Belgian chocolates is #2 ...

You know me too well. I understand now what you were trying to say. Although I must admit that some parts of this thread go right over my head.

[Dunadan]

Thanks for replying Methuselah.

It seems to me that you're characterising two (parallel) forms of knowledge: scientific understanding of God's creation and spiritual revelation. It is refreshing that you acknowledge that these are not fixed, but are imperfect and evolve (whoops! I mean change) over time.

My problem with religion as ontology is that revelation is essentially private knowledge (whether direct spiritual revelation or mediated by interpretation as a text) made authoritative. That is, I have my revelation which I impose on the rest of you. Throughout history, has there been a greater source of conflict and suffering than "my revelation vs yours"?

One thing that differentiates what we call scientific knowledge is that it is transparent, reproducible and testable. As Cirdan said, science CAN disprove things (beyond reasonable doubt) and, unlike dogma, is capable of wholesale reinvention when a theory is shown to be incompatible with observations.

You seem to lament the Church's failure to embrace science, resulting in an inevitable encroachment on Biblical orthodoxy. Again, I would raise the point that the vast majority of Enlightenment scientists, and Darwin for that matter, were fervent Christians; many of them still are. The problem only arises if you adhere too rigidly to that orthodoxy, or rather, one particular interpretation of it.

One final point: I think our positions are not that far apart. I'd view most of science as "useful framework" rather than absolute fact. As such, I would never advocate teaching that the Bible is scientifically "untrue". It is unfortunate that most kids are brought up to believe that science will provide all the answers.

Equally, I would never want to disadvantage my kids by witholding from them knowledge of the single most important theory of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

cheers

d.

[Lief Erikson]

Cirdan, I can only say that you've misunderstood large portions of Methuselah's post (Possibly through not reading carefully), so I will attempt to make some of these errors clear to you.

Originally posted by Cirdan
It would require some kind of censorship by the church to regulate researchers not directly reporting to them. How would this have been imposed? The truth is that the church did do all it could to suppress information that contradicted the bible. The evolution of independent science was critical to the achievements we enjoy today. Limiting ideas to those that don't agree to the bible would lead to... less ideas.

Methuselah was saying that Christianity should be more connected to scientific research, in trying to find out new things, then it currently is. He isn't saying that Christianity should control or regulate science, simply that it should remain on top of things, and have a base of knowledge and information from which to discuss the different discoveries.

Any scientist that would want to to research just to refute Christianity should find a new job. Christions that would want to be sure the bible was wrong would be disturbing. The only motive left is to cast doubt science that conflicts with the bible before it get to be accepted as fact.

The biblical model should be assumed by Christians to find out whether the Bible is correct or not. There is motive enough in that, obviously, for Christians that have an interest in history.

There is nothing in the bible that predicts that the planets would appear to track a non-circular path. This is what lead to the copernican model of the solar system.

Methuselah was saying that the Church had its information based upon Biblical scripture, but even though it did, it shouldn't have opposed Copernicus and Galileo.

As for the question about radio carbon, I'll leave that to Methuselah, whenever he posts. I've already had my share of that conversation .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Dunadan
My problem with religion as ontology is that revelation is essentially private knowledge (whether direct spiritual revelation or mediated by interpretation as a text) made authoritative. That is, I have my revelation which I impose on the rest of you. Throughout history, has there been a greater source of conflict and suffering than "my revelation vs yours"?

"My beliefs are correct and yours are heresy." Yes, that has been a large source of conflict throughout the ages. It has all sorts of dark moments, the witch burnings, the Crusades, the extermination of the Cathars, etc.

However, does one see a godly hand behind any of it? Definitely not. Spiritual revelation is when God speaks to an individual and tells them the truth. That is a very holy experience, and doesn't lead to evil things.

Interpretation of a text, however, can cause problems. And this is the reason for many of the religious wars in the past, because one group interpreted a text one way, and another interpreted it another way, and neither were lenient enough to let the other go on with its own beliefs. Others, like the Crusades, were political movements cloaked in religion.

One thing that differentiates what we call scientific knowledge is that it is transparent, reproducible and testable. As Cirdan said, science CAN disprove things (beyond reasonable doubt) and, unlike dogma, is capable of wholesale reinvention when a theory is shown to be incompatible with observations.

Science can disprove things, beyond reasonable doubt, until a theory comes up that disproves the theory that disproved the things. Newer and more accurate theories are always being discovered, and they sometimes topple earlier theories (Even though these had a good deal of evidence for them). Let's say one of the earlier theories shows the Bible to be incorrect, and it has a lot of evidence to support it. Science declares that Christianity is a big lie. Then another theory comes up, which is better and adds up correctly with inconsistencies they were receiving, and the old theory is scrapped.

A theory is only a theory, even though it may have many things to support it. An accepted theory wouldn't be called an accepted theory if it didn't have many things to support it. Theories are accepted based upon the knowledge we have now, and seeing from the reference frame we see from now. We can't see the theory that fifty years from now will be accepted, and which calls the old theories to be "old theories," but it very likely will be coming. Therefore, people can prove things or disprove things based upon what is currently accepted by science, but these things that are currently accepted by science can change. Thus it is rendered impossible to prove or disprove things (Or call them fact) in the final truth, since we are basing our proofs upon things that might be different from how we currently interpret them.

You're quite right that science is flexible and dogma isn't. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on your perspective. If you are looking at it from outside the biblical model, you are likely to think that science disproves the historical validity of the Old Testament. If you look at it from the biblical model, and actually find the correct placement of these events, then the biblical model becomes a very good thing, by which you can make predictions and verify them, and find out the historical context of these things. If the Bible is correct, then its unyielding determination to stand the sands of time is a wonderful thing. If it is incorrect, then poor all those Christians out there who base their beliefs upon something that isn't even historically valid.

[Lief Erikson]

Referring to the 7:05 PM at 11/5/02 post by RÃ*an:

Thanks for the kind words.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I don't know if I should post a fossil history dissertation on line. I can email you some examples after I get a little sleep if you like. If there is a clamor for something I'll post, heck maybe I'll publish.

Oh PLEEZZEE don't email me anything long! My connection is super-slow and it would really tie things up! No, I just mean could you please give me a few specific examples of specific parts of the fossil record that support specific areas of the Th. of Ev., like perhaps at a "guest speaker at a high school biology class" level. I've been answering questions for awhile, and I just wanted to ask some for awhile and learn some of your opinions on the matter (and other th. of ev. supporters', too, BTW - anyone kick in here, please, with info) . (if you know of any, that is - I have no idea if any of you happen to be familiar with this particular area or not - like I said, no one knows about everything!)

and Lief - you're welcome (and I meant it ), and thanks for tolerating some parent-talk! We just can't help it sometimes

[afro-elf]

Newer and more accurate theories are always being discovered, and they sometimes topple earlier theories (Even though these had a good deal of evidence for them)

How does being a more accurate theory mean it topples another?
Can you give an example? And no, quantum physics did not TOPPLE Newtonian physics.


It comes down to evidence. And that is where whoops ass. It does not retreat to phantoms abd shades.

[Lief Erikson]

Well, (Scratches his head and thinks about it) the idea that everything is predictable and that we live in a mechanical universe was disproved, for at the smaller levels, everything depends on chance.

Besides, what are you trying to say? That science never makes mistakes?