Should evolution be taught in schools?

[Cirdan]

Pulling numbers out of a hat is still non-random, unless the hat contains a infinite number of "slips".

Please don't expound as I have read the stories. The interpretation of the bible is unnecessary in a model that presumes all the physics of evolution are, to paraphase Einstein, revealing the mind of god at work. This doesn't then attach itself to any particular religion except renaming nature "god". It is still Frankenstein's monster to try and accept and reject enough of each, science and religion, to make the two as one. Many parts of each have nothing to do with the other. The points at which they overlap or conflict are meaningless within the application of each. Most Christians are comfortable with compartmentalising the two and making sense of their world in the light of each as they feel appropriate.

[Methuselah]

Originally posted by Lizra
That was very neat barrel rider. The last line loses me though!

I'm not sure I get your point Meth. I like to distill things down till they are uncomplicated and clear. (Is this what you call "dumbing down?" indeed! ) I feel I am concerned with what "is". You seem to be elaborating on what "might be". Since I do not have your "faith", the "what might be" comes off as just one of many possibilities that really don't matter to me. Yes, this could be and that could be, but until there's proof I'm not putting much credence in it. If something comes along to disprove (in a big way) the theory of evolution, I'll be right there, listening to every word with delight. Barrelrider's remark is very good for me. You know, if you don't have religious faith, you just don't have it! You really can't pretend! There are way too many religions for starters! I think your son is a doll!

I was just elaborating on the point that what "is" today, based upon science, does change over time. Science doesn't prove things, and so it is wrong to take things observed over a short period of time, extrapolate it over millions of years (or even tens of thousands of years) and assume that the conclusions are incontrovertible. One may have strong reasons for believing what science says "is." I don't deny that, and I am glad that you are flexible in your beliefs.

I don't see science and religion as contradictory, especially in the matter of evolution, but I do see Christianity as a religion with plenty of historical assertions that are definitely relevant to the faith. On these accounts, science has been used to discredit Christianity -- going from the Flood to the time of Solomon. It is only in this area that I feel that a biblical model needs to be developed to determine whether there really are inconsistencies between science and the bible. Some people assume that there are. I have spent a bit of time, not really focussed on Creationist literature but scholarly works, to see whether the case is strong. I have found that much of the evidence I've seen thus far falls short of proving the assertions against the bible in these areas. I've also found that a reasonable post-Flood model can be developed, and I am in the process of determining whether a Flood and pre-Flood model can also be developed. Of course, these things are difficult to do by one's self. But since faith is often personal, sometimes one has to attempt it by one's self rather than just assume that what you read is true. If I hadn't checked whether radiocarbon dating did contradict the Flood, I would have just assumed that it did. As it was, I discovered the measurements (reflecting world behavior and not local behavior) did not support Libby's original proof, which would have been convincing had the data supported it.

[Methuselah]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Pulling numbers out of a hat is still non-random, unless the hat contains a infinite number of "slips".

The whole universe does not contain an infinite number of possibilities. Are you therefore arguing for creation by design? I'm just looking for an admission that one cannot tell chance from intelligent design (unless you are God and can eliminate all possibilities of intelligent design because you know everything).

[Lizra]

Originally posted by Methuselah
I was just elaborating on the point that what "is" today, based upon science, does change over time. Science doesn't prove things, and so it is wrong to take things observed over a short period of time, extrapolate it over millions of years (or even tens of thousands of years) and assume that the conclusions are incontrovertible. One may have strong reasons for believing what science says "is." I don't deny that, and I am glad that you are flexible in your beliefs.

I don't see science and religion as contradictory, especially in the matter of evolution, but I do see Christianity as a religion with plenty of historical assertions that are definitely relevant to the faith. On these accounts, science has been used to discredit Christianity -- going from the Flood to the time of Solomon. It is only in this area that I feel that a biblical model needs to be developed to determine whether there really are inconsistencies between science and the bible. Some people assume that there are. I have spent a bit of time, not really focussed on Creationist literature but scholarly works, to see whether the case is strong. I have found that much of the evidence I've seen thus far falls short of proving the assertions against the bible in these areas. I've also found that a reasonable post-Flood model can be developed, and I am in the process of determining whether a Flood and pre-Flood model can also be developed. Of course, these things are difficult to do by one's self. But since faith is often personal, sometimes one has to attempt it by one's self rather than just assume that what you read is true. If I hadn't checked whether radiocarbon dating did contradict the Flood, I would have just assumed that it did. As it was, I discovered the measurements (reflecting world behavior and not local behavior) did not support Libby's original proof, which would have been convincing had the data supported it.

Well, Good luck on your work!

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Methuselah
The whole universe does not contain an infinite number of possibilities. Are you therefore arguing for creation by design? I'm just looking for an admission that one cannot tell chance from intelligent design (unless you are God and can eliminate all possibilities of intelligent design because you know everything).

No giving away my secret.

Actually, the universe might...

As to science being used to "disprove" the bible, it has been my experience that much of the historical parts of the bible have been verified by science, using carbon dating (dead sea scrolls)among other methods. Would you selectively reject those findings as well?

Libby's work may have been refined but it has never been held as unsupported in the scientific community. The same with Newton; Einstein refined his theory but people still use newtonian calulations for everyday applications.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Dunadan
The problem I have is with the large number of rather prominent and self-professed Christians who seem quite at ease with leaving these ethics for Sunday and going around smiting infidels and generally being obnoxious to their neighbours left, right and centre, Monday to Saturday.

Yes, I realize that there are a lot of Christians out there like that and I have a big problem with them too. But as Methuselah said, don't believe that the Christian with the loudest mouth is the one who represents the Christian religion. There are a lot of jerks out there who do that kind of thing. Luckily, no one in the discussion group I go to every Sunday is anything like that, and all of them have a strong personal relationship with Christ. There, I once heard an estimate that 90% of so called Christians actually aren't part of the true body of Christ. And the example set up by those people is very dismaying. There are rules in the Bible that they largely ignore, or that people twist to mean what they want.

But please, simply because a lot of people are setting a very bad example when they should be doing the exact opposite, don't assume that Christ doesn't exist. (Thinks about it for a second) Besides, such an assumption is illogical.

Originally posted by Lizra
Barrelrider's remark is very good for me. You know, if you don't have religious faith, you just don't have it! You really can't pretend!

I couldn't agree with you more, and it isn't right to pretend. One thing that I wanted you all to notice about Methuselah's post, is that he was demonstrating that God doesn't have to show to the world that he exists, for this, in observable physical evidence, would be inconsistent with the Bible and remove the need for faith. However, faith doesn't have to exist before you come to God.

Lizra, I know that you don't have a religious faith, and to speak plainly, I'd be amazed if you had a true faith, for you haven't yet met Christ. Faith comes after, and is very vital to Christianity, and in coming to know God better. But its true nature is different. Many people simply assume that you have to have faith to come to know God, but that's a view I've been fighting ever since I started posting on this thread. You don't have to have faith that he exists to ask him if he exists, and if you ask him from a sincere heart and with a willingness to continue seeking until he answers, he will answer. Time is in his hands. For some people, it is the same day they pray, while for others it is several months (Like in my case). He knows what a person needs, but you have to be earnestly seeking him.


Barrelrider, I very much agree with just about all of your post. I'd just like to elaborate on it a little, though.

Christian faith tells us that our faith on Earth will serve us after we have finished our time on earth.

That's true, but that faith isn't only for after we leave Earth, it is for the here and now as well. But you're right in saying that Christianity, for the most part, doesn't go against science. And even if it did, that's not likely a substantial enough evidence for why it couldn't have happened. That is because of the Chaos Theory aspect that Methuselah touched on, also for the reasons that I stated in my earlier example. There are many different things that show why science cannot prove something for a certain fact, and therefore if it goes against Christianity in a certain aspect, then it would be worthwhile for Christians to look more closely at their evidence.

[Methuselah]

Originally posted by Cirdan
As to science being used to "disprove" the bible, it has been my experience that much of the historical parts of the bible have been verified by science, using carbon dating (dead sea scrolls)among other methods. Would you selectively reject those findings as well?

Libby's work may have been refined but it has never been held as unsupported in the scientific community. The same with Newton; Einstein refined his theory but people still use newtonian calulations for everyday applications.

Archaeology gives good support for the bible post Solomon. It currently gives little support for the bible pre-Solomon. I am not being selective in my use of radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating is very accurate during the period of the last two thousand years. Radiocarbon dating, tree-ring-corrected radiocarbon dating, and archaeological dating prior to 1000 BC is inconsistent within reasonable measurement limits. This is discussed in journals. Archaeologists generally do not rely upon radiocarbon dates for these time periods. They prefer to rely upon stylistic considerations of pottery and other samples that they dig up. Everything in the Ancient Mediterranean (pre 1000 BC) is compared against the Egyptian timeline, which is based on historic records and Sothic dating. Sothic dating is based on the absence of a leap day in their solar calendar and the sighting of a particular star that rises right before their flood season. Prior to about 3000 BC, they rely upon radiocarbon dating because it is the only source of dating information. I would be very disappointed if they did not use radiocarbon dating during that time period. Even if the dates are wrong in the possibility of changing radiocarbon levels (i.e. assume a large cloud layer that significantly reduces the amount of cosmic rays entering our atmosphere), it still serves as a relative measure of time. Scientists are aware of the fact that the radiocarbon equation (how much C14 is produced vs. how much goes out due to radioactive decay or sedimentation) is unbalanced. After I pointed it out to a colleague of mine at work based upon my own analysis, he attended a lecture at UCLA where the same subject was discussed. The fact that the equation is unbalanced, however, does not disprove RC dating for the time period. It just weakens the proof somewhat in that it is now based upon the assumption that there were no major environmental changes during the period in question. RC dating generally dates to about 50000 BC. This is the limit of measurement error assuming no major environmental errors.

[Rían]

Lizra and cass -
I'm glad we're in agreement over the amend/discard theory stuff. The reason I wanted to even address it is that some people DO think the th. of ev. can be infinitely amended. I think that MOST of the people on this thread don't, but I was very concerned over those that DO. If people think it thru, they'll see the nonsense in the idea, but many people just hear over and over how it can be adjusted, and thus think that it will ALWAYS be able to be adjusted to fit ANY data. And if they think that, then they will never bother to consider any other theory.

And that's also why I was so picky earlier on the thread about people seeing that the "th. of ev. is a theory made ABOUT facts", and that it was not IN ITSELF a fact, because they won't consider any other theories if they have the misunderstanding that the th. of ev. is in itself a fact. Again, it probably didn't apply to most people here, but some people definitely thought that it was a fact, and I wanted them to think it thru and see that it wasn't true.


But now onto new things ....

Now the third misconception that I want to bring up will probably be a little more controversial, as I imagine most, if not all, of the th. of ev. people believe it. I see posts saying over and over how we shouldn't bring religion into science. But we have already, for atheism is a religion, and it should be taken out of science, too. Now, it's not an organized religion with buildings and hymnals, etc., but it is most definitely a belief w/o scientific proof, which is what th. of ev. people are objecting to about Christianity, and why they are saying it should be taken out of the scientific realm.

People are mistaken if they think the atheistic position is scientifically neutral. You say to a Christian, "you can't prove scientifically that God exists!" and I say, "you're right!" Well, as a Christian, I say to the atheists, "you can't prove scientifically that He doesn't!" And I think that the atheists here would probably be able to say that I'm right.

Now, what I really object to is when people say that you can't scientifically evaluate the theory of creation by intelligent design! Of course you can't, if that one statement is all you are trying to offer up for evaluation. Neither can you scientifically evalute the theory of evolution by that one phrase. But what you CAN evaluate is a theory that goes along these lines: "My theory is that the earth as we see it was formed by: evolutionary processes. What I mean by that is the following: (add details). And given these details, here is what I would expect to see in the following areas: In the area of physics, I would expect to see a, b, and c; in the area of biology, I would expect to see d, e and f; in the fossil record, I would expect to see g, h and i; and so on. If it doesn't quite mesh, I will make some adjustments and retest.

Now why in the world wouldn't a theory that goes like this: "My theory is that the earth as we see it was formed by: creation by intelligent design. What I mean by that is the following: (add details). And given these details, here is what I would expect to see in the following areas: In the area of physics, I would expect to see a, b, and c; in the area of biology, I would expect to see d, e and f; in the fossil record, I would expect to see g, h and i; and so on. If it doesn't quite mesh, I will make some adjustments and retest."

The only thing I changed was putting in "creation by intelligent design" for "evolutionary processes"! Wouldn't everyone agree that BOTH theories are perfectly suitable for evaluation by the scientific method? If not, why not?

[Earniel]

If you've said this before please direct me to your previous post, RÃ*an. But I was wondering to what extent to you see intelligent design? Do you think that a god merely started life in the primeval soup or do you think he deliberately shaped each and every species or that he occasionally gave evolution a nudge in the direction he wanted to take it? I'm just curious.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But we have already, for atheism is a religion, and it should be taken out of science, too.

Hate to be nitpicky, but atheism is a lack of belief thereof. So it's not a religion per se, but an ideology.

I agree partially with your point though. Science should attempt to be as objective as possible; theories should not be clouded by either a fanatic belief in a higher power, or a fanatic lack of belief in a higher power. The key to a good scientific approach is to leave your baggage at the door... I remember from my post-grad papers in anthro, that we dealt with a lot of this stuff. Especially since anthropology isn't technically a science. It was rather irritating how a lot of anthropologists (and I'm dealing mainly with archaeologists here) made the facts BEND to their theories, instead of looking for the most likely answers.

Now for a bit of levity:

"Let 'em say we're crazy, what do they know
Put your arms around me baby don't ever let go
Let the world around us just fall apart
Baby we can make it if we're heart to heart ...

...And we can build this thing together
Stand this stormy weather
Nothing's gonna stop us now "

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Eärniel
If you've said this before please direct me to your previous post, RÃ*an. But I was wondering to what extent to you see intelligent design? Do you think that a god merely started life in the primeval soup or do you think he deliberately shaped each and every species or that he occasionally gave evolution a nudge in the direction he wanted to take it? I'm just curious.

I believe that he has designed the species.

I think that he very well might have done it through evolution, as well. At the quantum level, everything depends upon chance. It is even possible, by an extremely unlikely chance, that I would be successful in running through a brick wall. This thing happening is so unlikely that I'd say anyone who tried it was quite stupid, but because of chance, it is possible.

Evolution also is based upon chance, and if, as Methuselah suggests, chance is or can be manipulated by intelligent design, then it is perfectly reasonable that God could create. The chance of evolution could be the design of God, and this explains his ability to, using evolution, create man in his own image.

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Hate to be nitpicky, but atheism is a lack of belief thereof. So it's not a religion per se, but an ideology.

Actually, I tend to agree with RÃ*an on that one. And RÃ*an, thanks for pointing that out! I'd never thought about it before.

Atheism is a lack of belief, BeardofPants, as you say. But it also isn't proven by science. Religion and nonreligion alike are the same in being beliefs without evidence. Thus, in being alike in nature to religion, atheism, the lack of religion, can be said to be religion.

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Hate to be nitpicky, but atheism is a lack of belief thereof. So it's not a religion per se, but an ideology.

Hate to be nitpicky about your nitpick , but atheism is a BELIEF that there is no God.

Are those lyrics from a song?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Eärniel
If you've said this before please direct me to your previous post, RÃ*an. But I was wondering to what extent to you see intelligent design? Do you think that a god merely started life in the primeval soup or do you think he deliberately shaped each and every species or that he occasionally gave evolution a nudge in the direction he wanted to take it? I'm just curious.

Now Eärniel, I just said a couple of posts ago that I wasn't going to tell what my personal beliefs were as far as the "how did this world as we see it get here" question I'll have to consider making an exception for you, though - let me think about it... (I'm open to being bribed by Belgian chocolates, BTW .... )

[Cirdan]

The idea of adding god as an extra step to evolution as in Rian's theory is that it's only purpose is to insert god. It becomes problematic for people of differing beliefs to make use of the theory. It is still not supported by anything except supposition. Many tests have been done to test the possibilities of the mechanisms of evolution.

Atheist - one who disbelieves god

Agnostic - One who doesn't believe the existence of god can be proven.

...or something like that.

BoP... what song is that?

Edit: mmmmmm.... belgian chocolate!

[Rían]

Let me add reference numbers to your post, please:

Originally posted by Cirdan
(1)The idea of adding god as an extra step to evolution as in Rian's theory is that it's only purpose is to insert god. (2)It becomes problematic for people of differing beliefs to make use of the theory. (3)It is still not supported by anything except supposition. (4)Many tests have been done to test the possibilities of the mechanisms of evolution. (5) Atheist - one who disbelieves god

(1) Whoa, whoa, whoa there! I NEVER added God as an extra step to evolution!!!!!!! My theory said "creation by intelligent design". (please refer to my post of 3 posts back, if that makes sense). I did NOT add God onto evolution in any way, shape or form. Someone did ask me if that's what I believe, maybe that's how you got confused.

(2) That's why I say "intelligent design", not The God of the Christian Faith.

(3) Absolutely untrue. As I said in my 3-posts-back post, the initial line of EITHER theory cannot be tested; it is the details of the theory that can be tested ("given this, I expect to see the following in these different fields:". ... )

(4) Good. And many tests should be done to test TESTABLE elements of a theory of creation by intelligent design.

(5) Do you mean "one who disbelieves that God exists?" The way you have it worded now, "one who disbelieves god", it looks like you mean "one who disbelieves what God says", which I doubt is what you mean. This is a sincere question! I would really like to be sure of what you are saying.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And that's also why I was so picky earlier on the thread about people seeing that the "th. of ev. is a theory made ABOUT facts", and that it was not IN ITSELF a fact, because they won't consider any other theories if they have the misunderstanding that the th. of ev. is in itself a fact. Again, it probably didn't apply to most people here, but some people definitely thought that it was a fact, and I wanted them to think it thru and see that it wasn't true.

I believe that evolution is a fact. I believe that species did evolve over millions of years. Whether this was by chance or by a supreme being, I know not, but I do lean towards the former. There is still debate over the details of how species evolved, and I wish I was more familiar with this, so I could discuss this furthur.

[Rían]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I believe that evolution is a fact.

But how do you mean that? Do you mean that you think it is the true description of what really happened? You certainly have every right to believe that; many intelligent people do.

That is different, however, from saying that you believe that the entire theory has been proven scientifically. Which do you mean? or do neither fit what you mean?

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
But how do you mean that? Do you mean that you think it is the true description of what really happened? You certainly have every right to believe that; many intelligent people do.

That is different, however, from saying that you believe that the entire theory has been proven scientifically. Which do you mean? or do neither fit what you mean?

I think that evolution is a true description of what really happened. All the evidence points to evolution as a real process. Evolution and the theory of evolution are two different things. I don't believe that the theory of evolution can ever be proven scientifically.

[afro-elf]

Atheism is a lack of belief, BeardofPants, as you say. But it also isn't proven by science. Religion and nonreligion alike are the same in being beliefs without evidence. Thus, in being alike in nature to religion, atheism, the lack of religion, can be said to be religion.

I think you might wanna change that

The lack of health can not be said to be health even though they are physical conditions


Athiest do not worship

being alike in one aspect does not make them the same in another

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by afro-elf
I think you might wanna change that

The lack of health can not be said to be health even though they are physical conditions


Athiest do not worship

being alike in one aspect does not make them the same in another

I don't want to change it. Being alike in one aspect doesn't mean being the same in another, but there are plenty of religions which don't involve worshiping some entity. Some religions believe that everyone is part of one entity, and they don't worship. Others believe in reincarnation. Not all religions believe in God, and not all religions worship, but that doesn't make one of them not religions. All religions have different names to demonstrate which this one is. Buddhism and Islam are totally different religions and have very different things to them. Because they are different religions and many things in them are different from the other, they are both given different names. Atheism has different aspects to it then the other religions, but it still is what other religions are: Nonprovable belief.

Originally posted by cassiopeia
I believe that evolution is a fact. I believe that species did evolve over millions of years. Whether this was by chance or by a supreme being, I know not, but I do lean towards the former.

That's fine, and completely reasonable. Evolution is a current scientific theory, with evidence to support it, and believing it is fine. Believing in the millions of years evolution is also fine, even though there is some evidence to the contrary, like the fact that there isn't more similarity among the species, and the fact that quite a few more recent books are discussing the likelihood of a faster evolution (I can't give you many of the names of these books, though, so don't ask). But the millions of years model still stands, for the time being, and believing the current scientific theories is fine for you to do.

Chance and a supreme being . . . it is impossible to tell, from a scientific standpoint, which is. It's up to you to decide what you believe for yourself.