Hope
Wrong rant, but hey, have it anyway!
just about sums up my thoughts as well.
Having tried desperatley for nearly five weeks tos top say Fuckwits in my hell posts I am at a loss for any other word; Fuckwits , UUUNNNGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
P
Saying both are faith poisitions is a little strange.
Given the sort of views that tend to go along with Creationism it made me wonder what other delights they might be teaching to the little darlings. I wonder what they do for sex-education? Anyone know?
L
you get that 10 days after you've married, louise. (and don't even try to find out about it any sooner!)
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Reduced me to foaming at the mouth too.Given the sort of views that tend to go along with Creationism it made me wonder what other delights they might be teaching to the little darlings. I wonder what they do for sex-education? Anyone know?
L
If they are only remotely like the school I know which teaches creationism they'll glue prayers over the pictures in the biology book and never ever mention sex during lessons - you know, it's a parental thing to explain it, anyway
I trust that the next inspection will minutely scrutinise the content of the biology lessons and, in the event of religious propaganda being taught as a substitute for science the responsible individuals will be summarily dismissed.
I might have known that Bigots R'Us, er Reform would be involved.
Would you be wanting a tot of rum with that the Fairport Convention fanfare in your honour? 
Tubbs
I was v. disappointed - I'd have much rather seen the rather joyless looking headmaster thoroughly Paxo'd
L.
(For US friends - Jeremy Paxman = attack-dog anchorman of UK serious news programme 'Newsnight)
I don't usually use emoticons, but how many am I allowed?
Not enough!
Doesn't care about children being taught lies so long as the exam results are good. Let's have an A-level in Bollocks, shall we? Oh look the results from these Faith schools are very good!
B*****d!
L
This is one of our sorriest exports. You have my humble apologies.
[Link edited. Do not use the URL as the name of the website you are linking to. It ruins the layout of the page and draws hostly ire]
[ 14 March 2002: Message edited by: frin ]
They interviewed first the vicar who is backing the school (Holloway someone?) who came from the angle that this is not about the question of the science (the micro-evolution) but the philosophy derived from it (he called it "macro-evolution"), which is fair enough - he didn't claim Gen 1-3 was "literal" but said it was "true". Not in itself an objectionable position.
However, two things were erroneous about what this guy also said:
(a) he claims it to be the position of most in the CofE. B.S., frankly, and
(b) as was pointed out by Richard Dawkins in the interview immediately following his bit, the school not only questions the philosophy, but indeed does challenge the science - the curriculum apparently calls on teachers to challenge "Old Earth" dating of millions and billions of years. Now, whilst this doesn't explicitly say they're teaching Young Earth Creationism (as opposed to a more nuanced Theistic Evolution), what other conclusion can we come to?
quote:
I suppose it was too much to hope for that we'd get a sensible answer from the Prime Minister.
Words fail me.
So-called "Macro-evolution" is part of the science, not the philosophy. Macro-evolution is the evolution of new higher taxa - new genera, families and so on. "Micro-evolution" is merely variation within a species or genus at most.
Virtually all creationists accept the latter - they don't have much choice since it's been directly observed, and they invoke it to explain how current biodiversity can arise from the limited numbers of animals that could be fitted on Noah's Ark.
"Macro-evolution" is an inherent part of the scientific theory of evolution. Owing to its timescale it cannot be directly observed, but leaves its mark in the fossil record and in molecular and genetic evidence within modern species. Because this is a bit more esoteric and harder to get one's head round (whilst hardly being rocket science) it is easier to deny its existence to the non-scientifically literate.
The guy seems to me to be merely putting forward the standard YEC position, given also the challenges to the age of the earth. Mainstream in the CofE? Excuse me whilst I choke on my coffee!
Can we get some sort of petition together, say with a brief critique of the school's position by people who know better (Karl/Alan?), which sympathetic people can sign up to and email it/send it to the school to show what some christians think of this?
It's simply not good enough to say that Creationism is simply 'an alternative theory'. Perhaps we should teach Flat-Earthism as an 'alternative theory' or that the Sun goes round the Earth. Typical too of Our Glorious Leader to say that it doesn't matter what the children are taught as long as they get good results.
People may knock Anglo-Catholicism (or indeed mainstream Broad Anglicanism) for many things but at least you would never, NEVER, get an Anglo-Catholic priest to espouse this sort of bollocks and try to teach it to our kiddiwinks. It just plays into the hands of the Dawkinites and makes yet another rod for others to beat us.
Cosmo
Off to cancel my bloody standing-order to the rat-bags at lunchtime.
L.
quote:
(b) as was pointed out by Richard Dawkins in the interview immediately following his bit, the school not only questions the philosophy, but indeed does challenge the science - the curriculum apparently calls on teachers to challenge "Old Earth" dating of millions and billions of years. Now, whilst this doesn't explicitly say they're teaching Young Earth Creationism (as opposed to a more nuanced Theistic Evolution), what other conclusion can we come to?
I have a copy of David Holloway's book "Church and State in the New Millennium" (which I keep in a locked box next to my copy of the Necronomicon for fear it should fall into impressionable hands). Holloway hedges as to how Creationist he is, but the footnotes confirm that such "academic" research that he relies on is derived from Creationist sources. Holloway's views are not compatible with the vast body of scientific evidence which supports Darwinian theory and, as such, should not be taught to children in science lessons.
Incidentally the day that David Holloway's views become mainstream Anglicanism is the day I leave. And Cosmo is quite right. It is highly regrettable that the Bishops don't have the guts to denounce this pernicious nonsense.
Bring on your petition Dyfrig.
[corrected a spelling because I'm feeling fussy today.]
[ 14 March 2002: Message edited by: tomb ]
). What Holloway is saying - not only is it not CofE position, someone with a bit of nous (Newcastle if he's got the guts, or Harries) should be pointing this out loud and clear.
In fact, I don't think there's any mainline denomination in Britain that holds this position as a tenet of faith or espouses it as its general consensus. Any Methodists/URCs/Baptists know more on this?
I really, really can't believe this is happening. I'm all for opening up eduactional opportunities, but to say, like Blair, that the results should be more important than the content is just sooooo stupid. What next - it's ok to get an A in RE even though you've been taught that Young Earth Creationism is part of the Nicene Creed?
Grrrrrr.......
quote:
"academic" research that he relies on is derived from Creationist sources
That's like studying Judaism from materials supplied by the Ku Klux Klan.
I wonder about an open letter sent to the press, stating our opposition to teaching of this nature as Christians?
If people want to go with that I'll frame something tonight.
Every apposite link on the Jesmond Parish Church website points to anti-evolutionary material and the Christian Institute (curiously also based in Jesmond - why might that be?) has a whole section on what teachers should be doing to counter the Anti-Christian Scientific movement (it also says that the alternative Biblical theories are 'always better'). Surprise, surprise it also has links to the most fundamental parish in the Diocese of Sydney, St Matthias Centennial Park (run by the Archbishop's brother) which has it's own press.
The best Bishop to condemn this would be Bishop Paul Richardson, the Assistant Bishop of Newcastle. He is a Catholic traditionalist but well respected by Holloway and his ilk. If he could be persuaded to come out against this (and he would present a splendidly cogent and articulate case I'm sure) then it would do the rest of the Church a lot of good.
Cosmo
Creationism?
Karl - if you can write something cogent, I'd be happy to add my name to it. Anyone else up for this? I suggest sending it to +Newcastle, the Grauniad and Times and the Blessed Virgin Tony.
I've not heard creationism preached at any Baptist church I've attended - but that could be either because I missed it or because I passed out from shock ... I know Baptists that believe in it but have no idea what the offical line is
Tubbs
quote:
As Christian teachers it is essential that we are able to counter the anti-creationist position... It must be our duty as Christian teachers to counter these false doctrines with well-founded insights.
Emphasis mine.
ROFLMAO
(reasoned mature thought to follow)
Aaaargh!
Hope
quote:
In fact, I don't think there's any mainline denomination in Britain that holds this position as a tenet of faith or espouses it as its general consensus. Any Methodists/URCs/Baptists know more on this?
It certainly isn't the Methodist position to judge from the reaction of my good lady wife on Tuesday evening!
I used to attend a joint URC/ Baptist Church which taught creationism in Sunday School. Most URC/ Baptists tend to fall of their chairs in shock when I mention this.
PM me chaps if you need my contact details (out lecturing tonight tho)
L.
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
I think it's time for action.Can we get some sort of petition together,
Go for it Dyfrig and Karl add my name to it as well.
BTW, when I heard this on Radio 4 this morning, why was Karl 6the fitst person I thought of?
As for our beloved leader ... and he wonders why there's a shortage of scientists and science teachers in the UK!
quote:
Originally posted by Steve_R:
why was Karl 6the fitst person I thought of
Clearly 2 pints of London Pride over lunch does nothing for either my typing nor my proof-reading.
Cheers
Matt
Now, while I belive both views (Old and New Earth) can be Biblical, I firmly belive that God DID create the world in 6 days. The argument shoyuld be over what constitutes a day.
Just my opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
In fact, I don't think there's any mainline denomination in Britain that holds this position as a tenet of faith or espouses it as its general consensus. Any Methodists/URCs/Baptists know more on this?
There is no official Baptist position on this, at least not in The Baptist Union of Great Britain, which doesn't have a statement of faith, rather a Statement of Intent.
Like most things in the BUGB, matters which fall outside a strict interpretation of basic Trinitarian Christianity are largely a matter of conscience.
I'm sure that there <i>are</i> Baptist Churches in the BUGB where a creationist viewpoint comes from the pulpit, but it's not the norm, inasmuch as there isn't one.
Mind you, it serves as a good example of the sort of bollocks that is presumably being served up to these poor kids in Gateshead.
quote:
Originally posted by gkbarnes:
Sorry to double post, but has anyone noticed that the media coveradge that I have seen (admitadly not a lot) has made us Christians look idiots?
Fortunately, both the presenter and, surprisingly, Richard Dawkins, made the point on the Today programme that this wasn`t mainstream Christian opinion, despite what David Holloway was claiming (well, actually, he dodged the question).
The sound clip is on the site linked above.
Fair enough if they taught "Creationism" in RS and Philosophy.
Fair enough if they sought alternative scientific approaches to evolutionary theory.
Not fair enough when they pass off "better Biblical insights" (whatever that might mean) as science and dismiss observable data as mere "philosophy". That is bad teaching.
I think they should go the whole hog - let's change the History curriculum so that only the Bible is used as a source for the Roman Empire and only books published by IVP can be relied on to trace history since then. Let's use Joshua as a source for physics, particularly of the earth's relationship to the moving sun. And let's not stop at A level - let's use Leviticus as the only source for studying Law, the Psalms as the only basis for Music, and Obadiah for Middle Eastearn Politics Studies.
Only because they are prepared to misrepresent fact, misquote scientists and make stuff up. Take away the misinformation and they have nothing to be persuasive with.
Classic example is the "Transitional Fossils Argument". You'll get guys like Ham saying there are no transitional fossils. But there are thousands. Blatent Lie.
You'll get out of context quotes from cladists who point out that you cannot make specific conclusions about, for example, which fish species evolved into amphibians, mauled around to make it look like the quote is actually saying there is "no evidence" that amphibians evolved from fish. Misquotation.
Then you'll get told that, for example, that our blood proteins are most similar to the butterbean - don't laugh - I read that on a real creationist website. Absolutely made up.
It's pathetic.
but here's a link to my analysis of a typical creationist lie-fest, sorry, web page.
quote:
Karl: And in what way are we behaving like fundamentalists Astro? Why is it fundamentalist to object to clear nonsense being passed off as serious science?
OK. I have made a concerted effort not to respond to this or anything else this last week with anything resembling an opinion, but I have to weigh in on behalf of Astro, who is, frankly, one of my favourite people on the Ship, and not IMHO prone to foolish statements.
I am not a YEC (and I'm fairly sure Astro isn't either). The vast majority of the ideas espoused in places like AiG are appalling. However, Young Earth Creationism is not at fault because of taking the belief in a literal six-day creation as its basis. This is - whatever you may say, however you may argue it - a legitimate faith position.
Where YECs like Answers in Genesis are at fault is in their attempt to try and prove their faith position using extremely bad science.
Now this is the problem. While I am also disturbed by this school in London, and I am pretty annoyed by Blair's statement, I am disturbed because the evidence in the press suggests that they will be using this self-same bad science to back up their viewpoint.
I am not disturbed that they believe in creation.
It makes me uncomfortable to see Christians write off other Christians as 'fools' because they hold to a belief which us more 'enlightened' Christians 'know' to be false. I believe in the Virgin Birth and the literal Resurrection, and it sticks in my craw to be thought of as 'benighted' and 'stupid' for it. I may not personally hold to a literal 6 day creation, but I'll defend to the hilt the right of a human being to hold to it.
Now I am fairly sure that it's really the bad science that's being condemned. However, reading it, it's fairly easy to take it both ways. The distinction has not been made clear.
I, for one, will only sign the petition if its wording is clear enough that the difference is made. Standing for the truth is good. Bigotry is bad.
My problem is totally calling this stuff science. It is, as you say, a faith position.
Unlike evolution, which is one of my beefs with the statements made by the school.
But I think that some of the posts on this thread didn't make that distinction clear. After all, they got me annoyed enough to end my self-imposed posting fast.
Normal service will now be resumed.
quote:
Originally posted by AG:
I am a creationist, I don't think I hung up my brains when I espoused that view, I have had to argue for it many times.
1) YEC is totally at odds with scientific knowledge of how the world actually is. It proposes an idea that not only goes contrary to scientific theories (eg: evolution) but against the data that those theories explain (and they explain the data very well too, I may add).
That data is primarily that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old; this has been verified by a range of independent methods. How can that possibly square with so-called "Biblical teaching" that the earth's approximately 10000 years old?
What is more, there are fossils of creatures in rocks which date back at least 3 billion years. Creatures have been living and dying for most of earths history. What is more the earliest fossils are far simpler than creatures which appear later; the nature of life on earth has clearly changed over millenia.
2) YEC is a modern theological innovation (only 100-150 years old) that is totally at odds with any previous theological thought. As Matt has shown on the Theistic Evolution thread in Purgatory, there are good logical and theological reasons for rejecting a reading of Genesis 1-3 as literal history that were recognised by the early church fathers. YEC takes a beautifully rich and evocative text and strips it of all it's power to speak to people by forcing it into a category of literature that no one until recent times even knew of. It is a totally inexcusable mishandling of the Biblical text that, if taken to logical conclusion, by applying the same "plain reading of Scripture" nonsense to the whole of Scripture can do nothing but render the Bible impotent to speak to us.
Alan
quote:
I, for one, will only sign the petition if its wording is clear enough that the difference is made. Standing for the truth is good. Bigotry is bad.
Which is the essence of my dislike of Reform.
Of course, they have every right to their views, but I object to them attempting to impose them on the rest of the Church of England. And I object extremely strongly on taxpayers money being used to pay for them to put out religious propaganda masquerading as science in schools.
But you are, of course, quite right about the letter. It should be clear that we are objecting to the teaching of falsehoods in science lessons. Not that we are objecting to people holding views that we happen to dislike.
Creationism is a faith position, and as such should not be taught as science.
But science is essentially emperical, so anything that can't be shown emperically is only a theory. Which does include part of evolution. Yes we can observe some changes over time, such as the examples given above, and these are acceptable. But to extrapolate that to suggest that man evolved from the sea over a period of millions of years is overstepping the mark, because it can't be observed or repeated or any other tests done to show it may be true. I would suggest that we need to be honest and say scientists do not definitely know, we just have theories at the moment, and we are trying to find out more.
But I do agree with the way science seems to be taught now. I think we need to teach about the value of doubt, the ability to understand statistics and how they can be manipulated, how scientific methodology actually works, and how to think for yourself. Which seems a hell of a lot more important than which theory is acceptable to believe.
Throw some of this into the petition and I will certainly consider signing it.
MadKaren
The reason for funding technology colleges,I thought was to produce more and better scientists.
It's like somebody said "Ok, we're going to have more medical schools to produce more Doctors for the NHS, but the catch is they'll all be taught their anatomy out of Galen." So what that it was proved medically useless ages ago?
To make such a huge fuss out of school inspection, quality, standards, education etc. and then to justify teaching children pseudo-science, which Blair must know to be such, and to justify it on exam results - that was just unbelievable.
When i think of the hoops they make people jump through in the name of 'quality' teaching and research assessment...and then this!
Grrrr!
L.
But Karl, if you are to do this thing, can I suggest you review the following statement -
quote:
My problem is totally calling this stuff science. It is, as you say, a faith position.
It might, BTW, also help people see why other posters, who may agree with your science, nonetheless are accusing people here of bigotry, or something approaching it. It's technically the correct word. It would be well to avoid it in whatever is produced.
Ian
It's not done by extrapolation. It's from direct evidence.
It doesn't need to be repeatable. Evolutionary theory makes predictions. Those predictions can be tested. When this is done, they are borne out. This is why it is science, and why it is not over-stepping the mark.
You seem to misunderstand "theory". In science, "theory" is as high as any idea gets. What in common parlance is called a "theory", a scientist would call a "hypothesis". The theory of evolution is as firmly established by evidence as the sphericity of the earth and the atomic nature of matter.
Philosophers of science aside; evolution differs from YEC in that one is held on the basis of scientific evidence, the other on the basis of faith in the doctrine of the literal inerrancy of Scripture. I think we may be working on different definitions of "faith position".
quote:
Philosophically - specifically, the philosophy of science - would disagree with that - they are both faith positions. All theories are "faith positions". Anything less than this is positivism, and if you go down that route you have already priveleged Dawkin's position over your own. The problems lie elsewhere, as you have already well indicated.
Doesn't it depend on which philosopher of science you read. I realise that Popper is rather de trop these days in some circle but he does have the benefit of being the one philosopher of science that scientists take seriously.
For Popper the essence of science is falsification. A statement is scientific if it can be falsified empirically. "God created the world" is not a scientific statement because there is no way that it could be falsified. "The world is four billion years old" could be falsified and is therefore a scientific statement. Science therefore proceeds by Conjecture and Refutation. A scientist thinks up an idea and his colleagues promptly try to prove him or her wrong.
Now what Popper was not trying to do was disallow unfalsifiable statements - Metaphysics. In fact I think he came to the view that metaphysics was an important source of truth. But the logic of his position suggests that scientific statements are of a different order to metaphysical statements and that we should not confuse the two.
Futhermore the propositions to which creationists are wedded, i.e. the literal truth of the Genesis account, have been falsified. Repeatedly. This is no more a faith position than the proposition that the moon is not made of Green Cheese. Trust me, people have been there.
The Christian reason for opposing creationism is that it is untrue and as Christians we worship a God of Truth.
The Scientific reason is that creationism has been empirically falsified.
(There is a consequentialist argument against creationism as well. To allow it into canon of scientific knowledge would wreck the integrity of science and,in time, wreck civilisation as well. But let us not be sordid.)
quote:
Originally posted by Karl:It's not done by extrapolation. It's from direct evidence.{/QB]
[QB]It doesn't need to be repeatable. Evolutionary theory makes predictions. Those predictions can be tested. When this is done, they are borne out. This is why it is science, and why it is not over-stepping the mark.To an extent. Where you can formulate your hypothesis, test and retest it, and find that your results agree with it then you can call it science. The point I'm disagreeing with is some of what is taught as fact cannot be tested, so therefore it should be taught as theory.
You seem to misunderstand "theory". In science, "theory" is as high as any idea gets.
Agreed. But this isn't being explained and people don't seem to understand the difference. Which may well be part of the reason we have such a public distrust of science.
What in common parlance is called a "theory", a scientist would call a "hypothesis".Again, agreed. I used theory over hypothesis as not everybody on the board is a scientist. I don't see the need to confuse people with jargon.
The theory of evolution is as firmly established by evidence as the sphericity of the earth and the atomic nature of matter.
I'm not convinced some parts of evolution are that well established by evidence. Can we agree to differ?
quote:
But I do agree with the way science seems to be taught now.
doh. I meant disagree, not agree.
On a side note, (this isn't meant as a dig at Karl) I thought that the Earth actually bulges at the equator due to the effect of the moon/tides and that quantum physics was shedding new light on the atomic nature of matter.
MadKaren
Sieg
quote:
I thought that the Earth actually bulges at the equator due to the effect of the moon/tides and that quantum physics was shedding new light on the atomic nature of matter.
Yaffle - yes, obviously other views can be heard but I don't think I misrepresent things at a macro level. I think people would be more cautious now and say a hypothesis was scientific if testable, if only because (cognitive dissonance notwithstanding) theories do not fall automatically if falsified. Propositions are contingent on other things, and frequently it is the other things that need examining.
Believing the moon is made of green cheese is a faith position - just a very stupid one!
Sorry I can't be more explicit - it would bore everyone stupid and I've got to get to choir practice.
Ian
Also as a creationist which these days I regard as a private view and not worth arguing about, possibly because Alan Cresswell is right and when I argue with anyone with half an ounce of brains I come off worse. But even as a creationist I don't accept the Ken Ham's argument on creation evangelism. I don't think that there is any milage in pounding someone with "proof" that God created the world in six days. This does not bring them any closer to the Kingdom. They will either go and read counter arguments and so be further away because you will only convince them that to be a real Christian they must believe this, or they will become the kind of trivia obsessive that is always proving obscure theological points rather than doing something useful.
It seems to me that unless a Christian makes an issue of creation then most people we meet are able to believe that however the world got here, it is at God's instigation and that He is at work in it. Most people seem to be more concerned with issues like how can I communicate with God? How does He speak? Can I really know that He loves me? Not Was the earth created 6000 years ago and on which day?
Imagine the scene..... Speakers Corner in Jerusalem about AD 30.
Jesus "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. You can trust me on this. "
Heckler " But you claim your Dad made the world in 6 days"
Jesus "Um, yes that's right!"
Heckler "Where as science has proved that it all happened through evolution. Spontaneously all by it's self."
Jesus "Oh! I forgot about that bit."
Heckler "And what about the burning bush. The most likely explanation is that it was an optical illusion caused by the sunset."
Jesus "Oh dear you have a point there...."
Heckler "And I needn't go into whether or not those many eyed beasts at the world are real or not.... "
Jesus "I can't argue with that point. B-b-b-b-but you definitely will go to a very bad place if you don't believe me!"
Heckler "But you have just admitted you can't trust a word you have said"
Jesus "Um yeah. Any chance I could give that appointment with Governor Pilate a miss? Only I haven't got time to hang about all day."
*******************************************
The question is did God make the world or not? Answer "yes" and you are a Creationist..(But I will add not necessarily "Young Earth Creationist")
I was listening to the radio interview on the way to work this morning. The point that the school was trying to make is that they teach that God made the world, the universe and everything in it. A philosophical position and a position of faith. All christians should be behind the school on that particular point. Any same person willhave to view the "Creationist" tag applied by the press and media with a degree of suspicion.
Where as a humanist/ aethiestic view of scientific evidence takes the phillosphical position that evolution is a natural occurance and that the universe is a result of coincidence of physical laws. Their resulting position of faith is that God does not exist.
Whether we like it or not the "fact" that God created the world is a core part of the Christian faith. As such, all mainstream Christians should be "creationist" .(again I will add not necessarily "Young Earth Creationist") in a sense. The job of science is to explain how the world works and how the universe came about including how the world came to be filled with the remains of a variety of life that has been and gone and is fabulously old from a human perspective. That does not mean we have to while away our time proposing propostorous theories as to how this came to be in order to try to reconcile the two accounts.
Personally I have no concerns about a teacher stating that they believe the world is about 6000 years old as long as they also accurately reflect other's opinions so that their pupil can a) make their own mind up b) understand enough about science to function in the prevailing culture and physical universe and c) laugh at their ideas if they think they are outrageously foolish.
IMO the thing that really makes Christians look foolish is the lack of consistency in their beliefs and their scriptures teachings. If you are going to start throwing some out where will you stop? What we should be doing is debating the arguments where brothers who are holding on to daft ideas whilst being clear about why and through whom the world came about.
For what it is worth my personal beliefs are that "evolution" is the process by which God made a hostile ball of hot gas and cosmic debris into a habitable place in which to place a population of beings that where capable of having a personal relationship with him. I'm looking forward to finding out just how he did it but will have to wait until this mortal coil has completed. In the mean time lets have a good look at the tantalising clues that were left behind.
All this reminds me of my (very short-lived) membership of a CU bible study group, a couple of years ago at college.
The topic of the first meeting was: "Creation". Within minutes, someone was saying, "of course we all know that God created the earth in seven days...".
To my genuine surprise, my loud guffaws were met with stony silence!
I then spent half an hour trying to convince a load of vetinary, medical and science students the proof behind evolutionary theory. It was, actually, a shocking and embarrassing situation. (It was my first encounter with Creationists in Britain) They were pretty hostile, I can tell you.
(NB: I don't mean to imply that all Creationists are hostile. Or that they're not fully entitled to their beliefs.)
Bongo
They couldn`t even understand my problem with this, which was, basically, that a person`s relationship with Christ has absolutely diddly-squat to do with how you believe God created the world, and to make people think it is is to put them off Christ. And, moreover, they didn`t even *want* to understand. They didn`t want to discuss it at all. I asked "What`s wrong with evolution?" There was a long pause. Finally someone said, with a nervous laugh, "What`s *right* with evolution?" And the conversation carried on without me. I left the prayer group, and, eventually, the CU. I understand that the evangelism campaign in the Biology faculty had pretty much zero success.
When I consider the remarkable way in which molecular genetic simularities bear out the predicted phylogenies from the fossil record, I consider the case for evolution as damned near proven as anything in science.
It has long seemed to me that if God did not use evolution, He went out of His way to make it look like He did.
First, a tengent. You must excuse me, but I have no training and no qualifications (B-grades in GCSE Biology and Chemistry don't count) in any kind of formal science. I happily declare my complete ignorance of correct scientific mehodology.
So I genuinely have to ask: what does 'falsifiable' mean when you're using it in this discussion? Because I'm fairly sure it doesn't mean what I assumed it to mean. Please. In words that a post-structuralist literary scholar can understand, k?
Two. It seems to me that when you're scientifically disproving 'Creation', what you're actually doing is disproving the lame pseudoscientific arguments used to 'support' it. You are manifestly not disproving creation, nor are you disproving the six-day creation. To illustrate my point:
quote:
Karl said It has long seemed to me that if God did not use evolution, He went out of His way to make it look like He did.
Well, why not?
The belief in the six-day creation presupposes that God created a perfect world, and that this perfect world ceased to exist as if it never had at the moment of the Fall.
This, outside of science fiction and given what we know about physics and stuff, impossible.
But then if we believe in an omnipotent God, we believe that He can do anything - even the impossible. Of course, this cannot be proven or disproven. It can only be believed or disbelieved - and actually, I have a lot more respect for someone who believes this than I do for someone who attempts to 'prove' it using easily squashed arguments and inaccurate evidence.
In the same way, if it was the tenet of my faith to believe that the world was created exactly as it was - history, geography, fossils, people, memories - on September 25th 1975, thn who could prove it? Who could disprove it?
By all means, mock creation science. I know I do. I mean I know some YECs, and frankly, even I can out-argue them with what I know about science.
But please do not, in the manner of a fundamentalist, attempt to disprove a faith position which, by definition, cannot be disproved.
This is what Astro, IanB, and I are (I think) talking about.
(a) an attempt is being made to pass off a faith position as science. I'm all for recognising "faith positions" (indeed, following Polanyi, I'm aware that much use of scientific data, method and programmed research is used in order to reveal certain faith positions, cf. directed research in the Soviet Union).
However, what is happening here is that the faith position is been given equal footing with observable data and is being paraded as the same thing.
If the school said "We will teach English language skills, but we're going to challenge curent grammatical forms and teach that French grammar offers "better insights" into the way the English language works", you'd think they were barking mad. If it was being taught in say "Comparative Grammer", this wouldn't be a problem.
Equally, if "Creationism" was being taught in Philosophy (along with scientific philosophy, "Scientificism") then no-one would be batting an eyelid. But it is being taught as actually science, and it is bad actual science.
This concept of the Bible having "better insights" into the physical data, as Alan says, debases the biblical material and does something with them that they are not designed to do. If the school curriculum contained detailed analysis of why the data is being improperly interpreted without recourse to a simplistic (and incredibly recent, minority reading of biblical texts), then I wouldn't have a problem - but that is not where the school is coming from. It is basically saying, "Teach observed data as if it were a faith position, teach a faith position as if it were observable data", and this in a science class. That is wrong.
(b) that this is being portrayed and standard Christian belief. It's not.
While I accept that God certainly could make the world in 6 days, with all the evidence to the contrary it seems unlikely - having eliminated the idea that science can be made to fit a 6 creation, we have two possibilities:
1. Genesis tells a true story, but God's creation tells us a lie.
2. God's creation tells us a true story, and Genesis tells us a "different" true story.
I'll opt for No. 2 any day.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But please do not, in the manner of a fundamentalist, attempt to disprove a faith position which, by definition, cannot be disproved.
I object to something that is not science being taught in science classes, and I object to something which is radically different from orthodox Christianty being presented as mainstream Christian belief.
Alan
quote:. I agree. The issue is not how long it took to create the world, but the fact that He did. Incedently, before Darwin, people were saying that it took God a long time to create the world.
The question is did God make the world or not? Answer "yes" and you are a Creationist..(But I will add not necessarily "Young Earth Creationist")
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I object to something that is not science being taught in science classes, and I object to something which is radically different from orthodox Christianty being presented as mainstream Christian belief
I completely agree. But the distinction needs to be clearly made.
btw. Thanks, Sean. I suspected that's what you all meant. But it's not in my dictionary, nor did my mate the maths lecturer know when I asked him last night.
quote:
First, a tengent. You must excuse me, but I have no training and no qualifications (B-grades in GCSE Biology and Chemistry don't count) in any kind of formal science. I happily declare my complete ignorance of correct scientific mehodology.So I genuinely have to ask: what does 'falsifiable' mean when you're using it in this discussion? Because I'm fairly sure it doesn't mean what I assumed it to mean. Please. In words that a post-structuralist literary scholar can understand, k?
Two. It seems to me that when you're scientifically disproving 'Creation', what you're actually doing is disproving the lame pseudoscientific arguments used to 'support' it. You are manifestly not disproving creation, nor are you disproving the six-day creation.
Wood, a discreet veil should be drawn over my 'O'Level results. Suffice it to say that your formal scientific training is a lot better than mine!
As Sean points out, to say that a statement is falsifiable, is to say that there is some way in which a statement could be empirically disproved. The statement "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, at sea level is falsifiable because you can boil a beaker of water and stick a thermometer in it. If it boils at 99 degrees or 101 degrees it has been falsified. The statement "In the begining God created the heavens and the earth" is not falsifiable because there is no concievable way of disproving it. This in Poppers terminology is the demarcation between scientific and metaphysical statements.
Now you are quite correct in saying that one cannot disprove the creation of the world by God butit is not a scientific theory and therefore should not be taught as science. And you are quite right that creationists depend on untrue assertions to bolster their theories which can be refuted. For example Holloway claims that evolution is not compatible with the second law of thermodynamics which is patently untrue.
To say that one cannot disprove the six days of creation because God could have created the world to look like that is, frankly, sophistry.
Whilst it is quite true that one cannot logically disprove it, or the proposition that the world was created in 1975, or the proposition that there is an invisible, inaudible, insubstantial dragon living in my flat such claims are, of their essence, irrational.
Any number of these unprovable claims can be made. The likelihood of any of them is scant and I fail to see why the education system, or indeed the Church should privilege one of these claims merely to placate the pious. Unless you can offer a serious reason to abandon rational dicourse and the scientific method I am afraid that creationists should either offer us proper scientific evidence to back their claims or to withdraw their assertions.
Of course, they will do neither. And people will continue to assume that Christianity is synonymous with ignorance and sophistry.
Is believing in those things sophistry?
While I completely agree that you cannot teach it as science, I cannot accept that creationists should 'back it up with evidence or shut up'. That attitude got us into the whole 'creation science' business in the first place.
To discount what is to some a dearly held religious belief as 'sophistry' is appalling, and precisely why this discussion is winding me up. As IanB said early on, you're at risk of positivism.
Please note: I am neither espousing the belief, nor am I defending it. I am definitely not defending the teaching of it in schools as science. However, I will defend the right of a person to hold such beliefs and talk about them without being bloopdy mocked as 'ignorant and stupid'
Don't give me 'sophistry'.
I can see differences between creation & such miricles as the Virgin Birth & the Resurection. The latter are exceptional events and although we have scientific evidence that such events do not normally happen, we have no scientific evidence that they did not happen. In the case of a 6 day recent creation we do have scientific evidence that it did not happen.
However, scientific evidence isn't everything. I can't personally subscribe to a literal reading for a heap of reasons, some of which have been covered here, but it IS a valid position. To ask for it to be backed up with scientific evidence is ridiculous - we are ridiculing people here for trying to do just that - it can't be done. That doesn't mean it isn't a valid belief. It does mean it has no place going anywhere near a science lesson, and is rather dubious in an RE lesson unless it is presented alongside other Christian views on the subject as it is not the main-stream view.
Hearing more about this Tyneside college on the radio last night the interviews with the parents seemed to indicate that the parents sent their children there because they like the ethos of the school. The interview with Richard Dawkins showed up his fundamentalist nature. In the interviews with the pupils none of them believed in a literal 6 day creation. Though I suspect many are taught that at home.
Ultimately this school is going win/lose on its GCSE results and if they teach science that is contary to that which is needed to answer GCSE questions they will lose.
quote:
But why is it less rational than believing in the resurrection of Christ? The virgin birth? The feeding of the five thousand?
Is believing in those things sophistry?While I completely agree that you cannot teach it as science, I cannot accept that creationists should 'back it up with evidence or shut up'. That attitude got us into the whole 'creation science' business in the first place.
To discount what is to some a dearly held religious belief as 'sophistry' is appalling, and precisely why this discussion is winding me up. As IanB said early on, you're at risk of positivism.
All right one thing at a time.
The miracles in the New Testament are based on eye witness accounts. To believe in them one needs to believe that a) The accounts are accurate. b) Accept the metaphysical propositons underlying them. I think that it is reasonably certain that the accounts are pretty accurate and for reasons which space does not permit me to go into I believe that the existence of God is a proposition of a different order than the proposition that God created the earth in six days complete with fossil record to annoy paleontologists.
The whole creationism debate is about whether or not the account (more properly accounts actually)in Genesis is literally true. This is a scientific proposition as it can be empirically falsified. Sorry Wood, it has been. Either those who believe it are ignorant of the vast body of scientific evidence. - Yes, the I word. Yes I know that I am ignorant of lots of things. Yes, I'm sure that many of the people who believe in the literal version are better Christians than I am. In fact I know perfectly well that the one Creationist of my acquaintance is a better Christian than I am. Nonetheless, in this instance ignorance is the correct technical term. - Or they are being wilfully dishonest. I'm sorry if this upsets you, but I reread the chapter of Holloway's book last night and it consisted of palpable misrepresentations of the scientific evidence.
I am not, lest I be misunderstood, disagreeing those who believe the book of Genesis to have been inspired by God. What I am disagreeing with is those who believe that it is a factually accurate record of what actually happened.
Whilst we're trading definitions perhaps you might define positvism for me. I'm afraid it was last used as a perjorative adjective for me by a university lecturer who objected to my insisting that there was actually such a thing as objective truth, and trying to find out what truth is is rather importance. Since then I've rather worn it as a badge of pride.
quote:
On a side note, (this isn't meant as a dig at Karl) I thought that the Earth actually bulges at the equator due to the effect of the moon/tides
[Pedant Mode On]
Not quite correct.The fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid is a result of its rotation.
However the combined influences of the Sun and Moon do indeed have an effect,not on the Earth's oblateness but causes the precession of the equinoxes
[/Pedant Mode Off]
I think I agree with Dyfrig on this one
[ 15 March 2002: Message edited by: tomb ]
quote:
Originally posted by Yaffle:
The whole creationism debate is about whether or not the account (more properly accounts actually)in Genesis is literally true. This is a scientific proposition as it can be empirically falsified. Sorry Wood, it has been.
I maintain that it has not. Sorry Yaffle. It hasn't.
For the sake of the sanity of both of us, and in order to avoid a replay of that Monty Python sketch where the guy wants an argument and he gets flat disagreement with every statement, I think we must agree to disagree.
quote:
Either those who believe it are ignorant of the vast body of scientific evidence ...Nonetheless, in this instance ignorance is the correct technical term. - Or they are being wilfully dishonest.
I believe that there is a third position. While I accept that the 'complete with fossils' argument has holes, and that the 'creation science' position is untenable, I believe that you can hold the position that God created the world in a shaort space of time with integrity. My minister - a man whose opinion I respect on admire on about 95% of things - holds it, and right now I frankly can't see why I shouldn't either.
I've stated my position a couple of times now, and I have nothing more to add, other than to perhaps observe that certain kinds of fundamentalism are apparently more acceptable in some places than others.
There are any number of observations that are incompatible with a young-earth hypothesis.
I would submit strata depth, varves, dendrochronolgy and persistence of long half-life radioactive elements.
The are only three options for holding a young earth view in the light of these:
(a) Ignorance of the data
(b) Omphalos argument - God made it look old even though it isn't.
(c) The scientists have got it wrong.
(a) is inexcusable - as someone's signature round here says: "when did ignorance become a point of view?"
(b) makes God a shifty bugger
(c) fails to explain why so many "flawed" methods agree on the ancient age of certain geological features.
I'm pissing off before I get more annoyed than I already am.
It's interesting being on this ship I end up defending all kinds of viewpoints I disagree with, personally I find a belief in God conjouring gold dust out of nowhere as unscientific as God creating a several billion years old universe in 6 days. I suppose that He could do these things but what's the point?
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
YEC may not be a valid scientfic viewpoint but it is a valid theological one.
Exactly.
If you are serious about setting up a petition, then forget it. Email petitions very, very rarely are taken seriously.
If you want to have your complaints taken seriously then you need to send in individual letters to the people corncerned, eg OFSTED, the school, the bishop. Getting twenty letters is going to achieve more than an email with 50 names attached.
bb
)
quote:
Alan Cresswell wrote:
But, how do you define a valid theological position? YEC is as valid a theological position as, say, JWs or Mormonism.
For what it was worth I was given a book expounding YEC by a JW boss before I returned to college after a year out. The theological position has wide spread adherance
If God did make a world appear x billion years old complete with fossil record there is no way of proving it. The people who we think were around at the time only take cameo parts in Time Team* these days.
*An Archological "make over show" for those who do not get UK's Channel 4 where they live.
= 53Wow 53 "furious icons" on one page of a thread - must be a rant against child molesters or satanists!
Oh no, I'm wrong - it's a rant by Christians against fellow Christians because they hold an "unscientific" point of belief!
So lets se..... there are lots of other "unscientific" beliefs that we can flame as well.....
a) Obviously it has been proven that Jesus Christ never existed.
b) and as for Moses and Abraham - well if Jesus doesn't get a look in then these two old fogies don't.
c) The account of the Exodus - well it makes a good film - but that's about it.
d) Miracles that Jesus performed - well he didn't exist and even if he did - suspend the laws of nature? - nahhh.
e) The virgin birth? - how stupid
e) The ressurection?
f) forgivness? - nope sorry - no Jesus / no miracles / no ressurection - better just get on with life the best we can.
after ANY belief in God is just so childish and unscientific - He musn't have ever existed at all.
Teaching Creationism as a faith position I have no problem with, eg 'some Christians believe that the Genesis story is literally true, and point to evidence x,y,z'.
What this school seems to be espousing, unless it has been misreported, is promoting evidence x,y,z as more acceptable science than the evidence for evolution, and that Creationism is the 'correct' and even official teaching of the Church.
Possibly one thing that makes my cursor gravitate towards our friend is that it seems to be another instance of David Holloway and his REFORM cronies (and I'm an evangelical-ish Anglican, btw) laying down the law about how sound they are with their legalistic, narrow self-righteousness, and how the church must be protected from all us liberal backsliders out there. I mean, next thing you know people will be thinking Christianity is all about grace, eh?
Maybe that's unfair of me, but it's what springs to mind in these hellish regions.
quote:Not quite accurate. It's a rant against Christians who consider it right to teach non-science within science classes as opposed to well established science. I would be as upset about people trying to teach resurrection as a scientific theory.
Originally posted by Steve Birks:
Oh no, I'm wrong - it's a rant by Christians against fellow Christians because they hold an "unscientific" point of belief!
It's also a rant against people who present a minority view that is at odds with, indeed detrimental to, Christian belief as though it were mainstream Christianity.
Both poists are worthy of several more of these
quote:
. I agree. The issue is not how long it took to create the world, but the fact that He did. Incedently, before Darwin, people were saying that it took God a long time to create the world.
Indeed. In fact, the discovery of the age of the earth was largely conducted by people in Holy Orders (Anglican.)
Who was it who said that people who know no history are doomed to repeat it?
I'm just curious for old times sake. 
Here it is still in the cache at Google, if anyne wants it for reference.
Louise
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Not quite accurate. It's a rant against Christians who consider it right to teach non-science within science classes as opposed to well established science. I would be as upset about people trying to teach resurrection as a scientific theory.It's also a rant against people who present a minority view that is at odds with, indeed detrimental to, Christian belief as though it were mainstream Christianity.
This may be true for you, Alan, but it certainly isn't for everyone here.
It is one thing to be angry about the teaching of a minority (minority? Not within the EA it isn't) faith position as science. It is quite another to discount a faith position which can be held with integrity as stupid, ignorant, 'detrimental', whatever.
Disagree with it as fervently as you like. Argue the point until everyone is blue in the face. But do not, repeat do not, and let me say that third time so you all understand, DO NOT dismiss it out of hand, and even more than that, do not dismiss those who hold it with sincerity and integrity as 'liars' or 'idiots'. This kind of dismissive behaviour is not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'liberal'.
Last time I looked in the dictionary, 'liberal' did not mean 'defends the right of everyone to their opinion, as long as one doesn't find it upsetting'.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
It is one thing to be angry about the teaching of a minority (minority? Not within the EA it isn't) faith position as science. It is quite another to discount a faith position which can be held with integrity as stupid, ignorant, 'detrimental', whatever.
There is a public perception that science and Christian faith are in conflict so I can't with integrity be both a Christian and a scientist, let alone be an evangelical and a scientist. I must admit that the attitude that people have that I must either be a poor scientist or a poor Christian has probably made my responses on this thread a bit stronger than I would normally discuss such issues (but, this is Hell "the refuge of the pissed off").
[aside]I would say YEC is a minority view even within the Evangelical Alliance; this EA member for a start isn't YEC. I challenge anyone to find even a mention of YEC, or the excessive Biblical literalism that supports it, on the EA web site)[/aside]
quote:
DO NOT dismiss it out of hand, and even more than that, do not dismiss those who hold it with sincerity and integrity as 'liars' or 'idiots'.
Although I believe that YEC is wrong, and therefore those who teach it are teaching a falsehood, I don't for a minute believe they are intentionally lying. Nor do I believe they are idiots, the complexities of the arguments they produce to defend their position is evidence of their intelligence.
Alan
eg. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas.
It's hard to see how stepping back a hundred years in scientific thought in science lessons in a technology college, fits with any definition of liberalism.
Liberalism doesn't mean tolerating everything. It certainly doesn't mean tolerating harm to others.
When children are taught demonstrably wrong science as 'the truth', their education is being harmed and by extension they are in danger of being harmed - taken in by the authority and position of the teacher to believe stuff which is demonstrably false.
They are being defrauded of a good scientific education - something which we might argue has harmful effects for society as a whole.
People have been letting off steam about that here. Instead of getting self righteous about the steam, if you want a thread without steam, post something in Purgatory about it.
cheers,
Louise
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
...Instead of getting self righteous about the steam...
Can you even read?
I quit.
quote:
It is one thing to be angry about the teaching of a minority (minority? Not within the EA it isn't) faith position as science. It is quite another to discount a faith position which can be held with integrity as stupid, ignorant, 'detrimental', whatever......
Last time I looked in the dictionary, 'liberal' did not mean 'defends the right of everyone to their opinion, as long as one doesn't find it upsetting'.
All right Wood. We are not going to agree on this one. Let's see if we can hold a rational dialogue in the subject without losing our tempers.
Let's deal with the trivial issue first. Liberal does not mean "being nice about everyone's opinion now matter what you think about it". Being liberal is about believing that reason (aka logic and empirical evidence) is the best way of deciding the truth or falsity of a position. It's not a fluffy 'anything goes' position. That would be relativism with which I disagree quite strongly. I stand behind the substantive issues of my position although I accept that my language was somewhat intemperate, for which I apologise.
FWIW I completely accept that creationists are entitled to their views. I merely struggle with the position that an opinion held in defiance of all the evidence can be held with integrity. I accept that you hold a different position. On this position we are going to have to differ.
Now to the serious issue. I have two questions, your answers to which I would be interested in.
Does the fact that a position is sincerely held by a religious person as a matter of faith preclude dismissal of that position as being just plain wrong?
My earlier question about a definition of positivism, reads more glibly than I would have liked, could you offer a definition of positivism and why you object to it so strongly?
I hope I've not managed to wind you up completely this time.
[code fixed]
[ 19 March 2002: Message edited by: frin ]
quote:
Originally posted by Yaffle:
All right Wood. We are not going to agree on this one. Let's see if we can hold a rational dialogue in the subject without losing our tempers.
Ok, so I don't quit. Although the 'not losing our tempers' part is a bit too late for me.
quote:
Being liberal is about believing that reason (aka logic and empirical evidence) is the best way of deciding the truth or falsity of a position. ...I accept that my language was somewhat intemperate, for which I apologise.
Point taken, and apology accepted.
quote:
FWIW I completely accept that creationists are entitled to their views. I merely struggle with the position that an opinion held in defiance of all the evidence can be held with integrity. I accept that you hold a different position. On this position we are going to have to differ.
Agreed.
Although FWIW, I don't actually think the evidence is even necessarily relevant.
While I am aware of Karl's 'shifty bugger' reservation, I think you'll honestly find people who believe it and neither attempt to justify it with pseudoscience, nor impute God with dishonesty. Because He's God, and he can do what he wants.
Tangent: I once knew an Anglican curate who believed in the literal six days. His take on it was that God used the evolutionary/ geographic/ whatever processes to create the world in those six days which were performed really quickly resulted in all the fossil records and continetal drift and igneous and sedimentary rocks and stuff. Same processes, same amounts, sped up. Since we don't really know how old the rocks are except by observing how the processes shape the rocks in the present, the argument went, the world appears through our interpretation of the evidence to be squilions of years old.
Now while I was a bit iffy on some points (like, did God create the dinosaurs in a bored moment or something? Actually, the main reason I'm not a creationist is because I think dinosaurs are so cool ) I thought that was quite nice. And it is a demonstration of a fairly consistent and (IMO) non-falsifiable viewpoint.
quote:
Now to the serious issue. I have two questions, your answers to which I would be interested in.Does the fact that a position is sincerely held by a religious person as a matter of faith preclude dismissal of that position as being just plain wrong?
Let me put it this way. There are people here who believe sincerely that the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ or is 'divinely empowered' in some way. I can't see how this can be true.
There are people here who believe that the Orthodox Church is the only true church. I believe that this is wrong. There are people here who don't believe in the literal resurrection of Christ. I believe them to be wrong. There are people who think that the free market is better than a welfare state. They are IMHO so very, very wrong.
I have friends who consider Allah to be God and Muhammed his one prophet. I have friends who believe that the last revelation of God was given by Baha'ullah. I believe that they are completely wrong. I can't really believe otherwise.
But they hold these positions. Many of them are intelligent people and even nice people. All of them sincerely hold to these views. Am I going to discount them as idiots or am I going to treat them with the respect with which I expect them to treat me? I will disagree. I will argue the point.
quote:
My earlier question about a definition of positivism, reads more glibly than I would have liked, could you offer a definition of positivism and why you object to it so strongly?I hope I've not managed to wind you up completely this time.
No. This time you haven't wound me up at all.
OK. This is a dictionary definition of positivism, which I got from dictionary.com:
quote:
pos·i·tiv·ism
1. Philosophy.
a. A doctrine contending that sense perceptions are the only admissible basis of human knowledge and precise thought.
b. The application of this doctrine in logic, epistemology, and ethics.
c. The system of Auguste Comte designed to supersede theology and metaphysics and depending on a hierarchy of the sciences, beginning with mathematics and culminating in sociology.
d. Any of several doctrines or viewpoints, often similar to Comte's, that stress attention to actual practice over consideration of what is ideal: “Positivism became the ‘scientific’ base for authoritarian politics, especially in Mexico and Brazil” (Raymond Carr).
2. The state or quality of being positive.
And really, I was echoing what IanB said before, which I cnnot say in better terms:
quote:
All theories are "faith positions". Anything less than this is positivism, and if you go down that route you have already priveleged Dawkin's position over your own. The problems lie elsewhere, as you have already well indicated.
It might, BTW, also help people see why other posters, who may agree with your science, nonetheless are accusing people here of bigotry, or something approaching it. It's technically the correct word. It would be well to avoid it in whatever is produced
quote:
Louise, Wood is not complaining about the steam but rather that in letting off steam Christians who hold a YEC position with sincerity and integrity are being labelled with adjectives such as "stupid", "idiotic" or "liars", and their position being summarily dismissed as such. At least, that's how I read his post.
Thanks, Alan. That's exactly what I meant.
Louise, I apologise for my last post directed to you. I let my temper get the better of me there. Post in haste...
Anyway.
I am now out of this discussion. I have made my point about six times now. You want to prove me wrong, fine.
But I am so very gone from here.
I skimmed the thread again and apart from an exclamation of 'fuckwits' from Pyx-e I can't see anyone calling YECs themselves things like stupid or liars, but it has been said that some people who argue the position have misrepresented scientists and it has been said (I think by Sean)that it's a 'lie' to say that it can be supported by science.
Apart from the exclamatory 'fuckwits' (which looks like letting off steam to me) - I can only see the position being attacked and not the people who hold it
(I think unprintable things about Tony Blair but that's another matter).
Maybe I've missed something?
I don't think anyone would disagree with you Wood about tackling the view and not making blanket claims of the sort that 'all people who believe view X are stupid or liars'.
cheers,
Louise
The problem with a lot of the support of evolution is that some people feel so cornered by creationists that they are drop the sciencentiffic method and say "this how it is and there is no other way" when science should be open to any new evidence.
Interestingly the 2 most conservative newspapers in the UK took opposing view with the Mail supporting the school and the Telegraph publishing a piece by Richard Dawkins.
Anyway if we stick with gradual evolution how long does it take bread and wine to evolve into flesh and blood?
Yours in Christ
Matt
Ever since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial that pitted Clarence Darrow against William Jennings Brian in a case that determined it was illegal to teach evolution in Tennessee schools, Americans have been in the forefront of evolutionary quarrels (discounting, I suppose, the poetry of Matthew Arnold).
At the crux of the problem is not *what* someone thinks or believes, but *how* they arrive at that conclusion. For reasons that have little to do with science and everything to do with an over-literal biblical hermaneutic, people have been performing the equivalent of intellectual handsprings to shoehorn a religious belief into a scientific, largely materialistic cosmology.
Now I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of the science employed here, but I can promise you the results will always be intellectually bankrupt regardless of the rigor employed.
Why? Because people began with "This must be true because the Bible says so..." and work to find a way to discover that truth instead of beginning with "Let's find out what's true...."
Frankly, the science is irrelevant and the hermaneutic is absurd. It is the underlying intellectual process that is suspect.
Every once in a while, smaller "Christian" schools in this country will make a point of proclaiming their academic excellence based on examination scores, etc. Well, I have taught some of these children when they get to university, and almost universally they are incapable of writing a persuasive expository essay that states a thesis and supports the argument.
They know lots of "facts," but they cannot synthesize them into an original idea to save their little Christian souls.
It is one of the most difficult tasks to try to convince a student that something is not true just because they want it to be true and that their internal intellectual processes (if you can call them that) are sufficient support for the position/belief they espouse.
This is why the teaching of "creationism" or "creation science" is so pernicious. There are enough stupid people out there without creating more of them by failing to teach them how to think.
tomb
quote:
Disagree with it as fervently as you like. Argue the point until everyone is blue in the face. But do not, repeat do not, and let me say that third time so you all understand, DO NOT dismiss it out of hand, and even more than that, do not dismiss those who hold it with sincerity and integrity as 'liars' or 'idiots'. This kind of dismissive behaviour is not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'liberal'.
Right, I will now proceed to argue this one till I turn blue.
Anybody who has studied the history of science in any detail at all knows how just about every strand of scientific enquiry, whether it be biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, or indeed anything which investigates the world as it is, has contributed to our understanding of the age of the universe and the earth, and their processes of development. Just to mention a few strands of enquiry:
Astronomy's developing understanding of the birth and death of stars and the timescales involved (including astrophysics)
Chemistry - the understanding of why different sources of lead have different isotopic mixes, and the decay mechanisms which make radiocarbon dating possible
Geology - the understanding of how rocks arise by a process of sedimentation, and the timescales involved;
Continental drift and the movement of the continents as demonstrated by the different diractions of the magnetic fields trapped in rocks
Biology - the development history of DNA, and the tracing of evolutionary lines via a range of approaches from the fossil record through comparative taxonomy, DNA analysis and the differential histories of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA
I could go on and on...
So on the one hand we have the idea that the Universe is ancient and its present state has resulted from a hugely complex development process which we are learning to understand
And on the other we have the idea that God created the universe in a very short period of time, faking all the evidence. God created stars instantly in different stages of stellar evolution and then allowed the stallar evolution to carry on despite the fact that it had not in fact been going on in the past?
God faked continental drift, faked seafloor spreading, faked fossils in coal, faked dendrochronology of trees, faked geology, in fact faked the entire shebang and THEN started it all running with a load of rules that were intended to fool the best minds of the entire human race, fakes which were so perfect that no scientist was ever able to spot them?
What kind of God is this? A liar. A cheat.
And I am expected to believe this bollocks on the evidence of half a chapter of the Bible, which lacks provenance, in which several different creation legends are mixed up, as against the patient research of thousands of scientists, peer reviewed and checked, which has never turned up a single instance where the creationist hypothesis makes any kind of sense?
No, I am sorry. After a scientific education, years of teaching science, years as a working research engineer, years as an R&D director, I am asserting my right to dismiss Creationism out of hand as a load of tosh that could only be believed by someone who has either never been taught science properly or slept through lessons, or whose mental gearstick is stuck in neutral or reverse. I believe those people are sincere. David Icke is presumably sincere in his belief that the world is run by seven foot tall lizards. But they are literally idiots - idiotai - people who do not understand what God has placed around them for us to wonder at, and perhaps to understand. And if they eventually obtain power and force their beliefs on us, then I will be standing here muttering "eppur si muove", like someone else who was not afraid to call idiots the people who would not look through his telescope for fear of what they might discover.
No, I am not a liberal where truth is concerned. I am a liberal where the statistics are vague or where research shows received wisdom to be doubtful or contradictory. But in the past I have been paid - and often well paid - to find out truth and make it prevail.
Reading this thread has once again made me proud to be a Quaker. We have numbered among our members people like Eddington and Burnell, astronomers whose work has helped elucidate the structure and age of the universe. The Church of England has an equally proud history of great geologists like Sidgwick, whose work showed that the Earth was far older than had been realised. At Cambridge I met academics who were geologists and biologists and who would devote as much energy to defending Christianity as they would to their research. To pretend that the nonsense spouted by Creationists is of equal value with the work of these people is to do a disservice to the Church and to their memory.
To admit Creationism as a doctrine to be taught in schools in this country, except as an example of how fundamentalist American sects go comprehensively off the rails, is to deny our history and our civilisation.
quote:
Would we be getting so cross if it were a hindu faith school and taught "the churning of the seas" (a hindu creation myth) as an alternative to evolution?
If it were taught as science, then yes.
quote:
The problem with a lot of the support of evolution is that some people feel so cornered by creationists that they are drop the sciencentiffic method and say "this how it is and there is no other way" when science should be open to any new evidence.
On the contrary. Science is open to new evidence, the problem is that when creationists endeavour to compete in the scientific arena what they offer is not evidence but distortions of the evidence. Pseudo-science in fact.
Astro BSc
Yaffle
CSE Grade 1 Chemistry.
L.
I may not be a YEC or a catholic but IMHO they have as much right to believe what they do as I have to believe what I do. However they do not have the right to impose their viewpoint on everyone who has a different viewpoint. Similarly Evolutionists and Protestants have the right to believe what they do and do not have the right to impose their views on others.
Further to clarify, if I am studyimg Roman Catholithism I cannot ignore (because I do not like it) the authority of the pope, similarly if I were a YEC studying biology I could not ignore evolution because I did not like it.
The Biblical injunction is to speak the truth in love - ridiculling the other person's viewpoint is not "in love".
quote:
but hey so was Neutonian Mechanics until Einstein came along.
And what, pray, is your BSc in?
Not presumably physics, or you would know that Newtonian mechanics is still an extremely good fit to observations at the sort of energy levels available to Newton. Einstein's mechanics do not replace Newton's, just show it to become increasingly approximate as the difference in velocities increases towards c.
Which is why we still use Newtonian mechanics for everyday life.
The difference between real science and pseudo-science is the kind of falsifiability. Real science gets extended and improved by better models. Pseudo-science gets trashed. This is, I think, where Popper has done such a disservice. He uses "falsifiability" in a way that is misunderstood by Creationists. They do not seem to understand (or perhaps want to understand) that, for instance, if someone were to "falsify" the prion hypothesis by showing that there is in fact a small RNA virus associated with prions, this would not falsify molecular biology in toto, it would just show that one tiny part of it was headed off in the wrong direction. On the other hand, Bishop Usher's date for the Creation is one tiny part of the Bible which is falsified by the entire thrust of modern science. It's the difference between finding that the murder was committed by the accused at 5 minutes past 3 instead of 3 o'clock, and finding that during the entire day in question the accused was leading a retreat 5000 miles away attended by the assembled Bishops of the Church of England, all of the Chief Constables, and half the generals in Nato.
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
The ones that pop up on television and say evolution is not a theory but a proven fact.
Ok if it is proven then replicate it,
it may be a bloody good fit theory to the evidence that we have, but hey so was Neutonian Mechanics until Einstein came along.
Firstly it's Newtonian, not Neutonian, mechanics.
Secondly, science is about accurate models of reality; for most practical purposes, Newtonian physics is an adequately good model; within bounds, it is 'true', beyond them it is not. In time, current physical theories will be improved, and I doubt that the range of validity of current theories will be significantly reduced thereby.
That a better and more accurate model exists, or could exist, does not imply the underlying falsehood of given model per se.
Secondly, it is quite possible to observe small-scale evolutionary progressions; this has been done in individual genus/species in given locations, and can be done by computer models using "genetic algorithms", given an appropriate selector, evolution will naturally occur.
The model of evolution is generally accurate, but not totally so. Current known observations have demonstrated shortcomings in the current understandings of the process. Some folks argue for a stop-go type process, others for a more linear one, etc. However, this like Einteinian vs. Newtonian physics is essentially one of refining or broadening the parameters of validity.
My experience of YEC folks is that they believe that those who do not give credence to their views are not Christians - indeed, I have been explicitly told by a number that those who don't literally believe in a 6 day creation are going to Hell for their unbelief.
YEC is not science, it is simply unsupportable within the evidence available.
I have problems even saying its a legitimate faith position; if it's not true, it cannot be of God. I'm a Creationist in so far as God made the world, but it seems he took more than 6 days to get the job done.
quote:
Originally posted by AG:
<<snip>>
Was the earth created 6000 years ago and on which day?
It was, of course, a Sunday.
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
I suspect that I am not the only American reading this thread with some amusement.<snip>
This is why the teaching of "creationism" or "creation science" is so pernicious. There are enough stupid people out there without creating more of them by failing to teach them how to think.
Well, this American has been reading with some amusement and some chagrin as well.
As a professor I spent more time than bears remembering trying to explain to people that the Bible is not a good source of evidence for one's claims in a persuasive essay when one's audience is composed among others of people who don't give a rat's ass about the Bible as a guide to others' faith experience, never mind as an historical or scientific document. Worse even than how incapable these poor people were of critical thought was how much their security depended on simplistic, literal readings of the Bible. And that I think is where all of this comes from in our culture.
quote:
Originally posted by Panurge:
To admit Creationism as a doctrine to be taught in schools in this country, except as an example of how fundamentalist American sects go comprehensively off the rails, is to deny our history and our civilisation.
Nice to be so far away from the source. But ponder this from a review of Ronald Numbers' The Creationists, a history of creationism:
"The oldest anti-evolution organisation in Great Britain was the Victoria Institute, founded in 1865. Over time most of its members had moved towards theistic evolution, leading anti-evolutionists such as Douglas Dewar and Lewis Merson Davies to set up the harder-line Evolution Protest Movement in the early 30s. This never gained much credibility amongst evangelicals, however."
Despite not being credible among evangelicals (hi Alan!), the organization still exists; its name is now the Creation Science Movement. And check out the leaders! The council members are each listed with either title or degrees.
So no need to be quite so high and mighty about your civilization, Panurge!
quote:
And check out the leaders! The council members are each listed with either title or degrees.
So six medical doctors, engineers and scientists are slightly bonkers. So what? A tiny minority is a tiny minority. If the best I could muster for an hypothesis that claims that a large part of contemporary science is flatly wrong was six PhDs, well, all I can say is that the proponents of cold fusion had more than that at one time.
As for title...please tell me what that has to do with anything.
Never mind. Wood invited us to argue till we were blue in the face. I know perfectly well that nothing I write here will affect anything anyone believes. But sometimes the temptation to write precisely what I think is too strong.
quote:
Actually, the main reason I'm not a creationist is because I think dinosaurs are so cool )
Originally posted by Ruth W.
quote:
And with Wood being a creationist, I doubt very much that the number of UK creationists is limited to the governing board of that silly society.
Er, did I miss something.
tomb
The question is what is the outcome of the argument.
Reading this thread I've come up with a personal hypothesis about Creationism. It is that it is able to flourish because of three factors:
1. The big discoveries in biology, geology and astronomy have been made and have not been "news" for many years. Therefore the great majority of people have never been exposed to them.
2. Science is increasingly specialised, and working scientists are more likely to spend their spare time thinking of arguments to improve funding rather than finding out what is going on in other areas.
3. Belief in Creationism does not result in behaviour that is manifestly at odds with reality.
Ah well, only two days of Science Week left and then I shall stop monitoring this thread.
quote:
After a scientific education, years of teaching science, years as a working research engineer, years as an R&D director, I am asserting my right to dismiss Creationism out of hand as a load of tosh that could only be believed by someone who has either never been taught science properly or slept through lessons, or whose mental gearstick is stuck in neutral or reverse. I believe those people are sincere. <<snip>> But they are literally idiots
I am offended by this comment. You have no right to call people such names. I would like to see an appology for this.
I admit that I know little about evolution. However, is the following position not possible:
The six days mentioned in Genesis were each, say, 1 billion years long (2Pet.3
[8] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.) Thus creation could have been as described, without the evolution of life as described in the Darsinian theory. The stars and planets created some 6 billion years ago, and man created some time later, in his present form?
Panurge: If you are going to respond to me, don't call me an idiot again.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ah, the good old "day"="age" theory. Two big problems:
1) the order of creation is still all wrong
2) that makes the whole evening - morning language non-literal unless you want a few hundred million years between sun rise and sun set. If you're going to accept that as non-literal why not go to the logical conclusion and accept the whole story is non-literal?
1) All wrong? No. Mostly correct. Day one (earth, light and dark). Day two (divide of the water). Day three (dry land and vegitation). Day four (sun and moon). Day five (birds and fish). Day six (animals and humans). The only problem I see here is some confusion between day one and day four, which someone smarter than me will have to explain. The rest is quite reasonable.
2) Oh, yes, if one thing is non-literal, throw out the whole thing. I think that is a point that is rejected almost universally. If you want to reject the whole creation story just because one thing does not seem to be literal, why don't you reject the whole Bible because one story is not to be taken literally. Sorry - your position does not seem to make sense here.
I'd rather accept a contradiction between "day" one and "day" four than believe that we descended from tadpoles and apes, or whatever.
quote:
Reminds me of a Ph.D. geologist from the Colorado School of Mines who told me one time that God placed fossils in the earth to test Christians' faith. He wasn't the brightest bulb in the academic marquee.
Which reminds me of the Bill Hicks standup routine:
Bill: So what about fossils then?
YEC: God put those there to test our faith.
Bill: Buddy, I think God put YOU here to test MY faith!
(Slightly better told than that, but you get the idea)
Paul
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
But how does someone with such a belief reconcile Genesis 1 (6 day creation: animals created, then humans) with Genesis 2 (1 day creation: man created, then animals, with woman last of all)? One of the reasons why I don't hold a literalist understanding of these passages is that they seem to be to contradicting each other quite badly. Or have I missed something?
Genesis 2 is written to provide more detail about the creation. If you read that Gen 2:[19] (And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them) as being that God had formed the beasts, and now He brought them to Adam, it is not unreasonable that a worng tense of the verb "to form" had been used.
I don't know about anyone else, but sometimes I use the worng tense, perhaps Moses did too. Maybe not a great answer, but it works for me.
I'm not sure why Genesis needs to mean a one day creation, I didn't see any references there.
quote:
I don't know about anyone else, but sometimes I use the worng tense, perhaps Moses did too. Maybe not a great answer, but it works for me.
So Moses was falible on the subject of grammar and inerrant on biology and physics. That's OK then.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Wood is not a creationist.
I AM NOT A CREATIONIST! I'M NOT!
Which part of that do you people understand?
And how is thinking that dinosaurs were too cool to be an accident/hoax/whatever equivalent to saying they were put there to 'test our faith', Tomb? Hmm? Hmm?
quote:
He just thinks it's an intellectually defensible position. The point still stands, though - if someone as bright and educated as Wood thinks creationism is intellectually defensible, creationism has more of a toehold in the UK than I would have thought it did.
Not really a contribution to this debate, more a clarification.
To wit: Creationism, while more common than has been admitted here, is not IMO a majority view and doesn't really have a huge influence here at all.
However, my view could be said to be more postmodern on this point; I do not consider the wholly scientific view of the universe to be any more of an adequate metanarrative than any, more mystical view of life, the universe, and everything.
So there.
This is, of course, a tangent, and if someone wants to discuss this point over in Purgatory on a wholly separate thread, I'll be glad to do so.
quote:
But they are literally idiots - idiotai
Note the word "literally" and the use of the Gk "idiotai". idiotai means people who lack expertise in a particular area. But then you knew that, because how can you believe the authority of the New Testament and not know Greek?
So, sorry, no apologies.
Saying someone's mental gearstick is stuck in neutral or reverse is an insult, whether you know greek or not!
Using the word idiot is not softened by your claim that you are relying on the underlying greek term. You used idiot, you had to know the connotations associated with it.
Please do not respond to me unless you appologize!
If I have indeed upset you then I am sorry, but this is a subject on which I feel extremely strongly. For which reason, perhaps, I deliberately went somewhat over the top, to the point of burlesque. I was thinking of Galileo's great passage in which he writes to Kepler about the "astronomers" who refuse to look through his telescope because it is showing a non-Aristotelian universe.
I feel strongly about it for two reasons: First, because I sincerely believe that many YECs are indeed intellectually insincere, inventing arguments and professing beliefs because it attracts considerable funding from right-wing conservatives and gets them jobs in American universities which have little competition from better scientists. And, second, because, as I observed in my original post, YECs make God out to be a cheat and a liar, putting false evidence all over the Universe to disguise its origins, right down to forged human artifacts. For me, that is so antithetical to the nature of God that it amounts to blasphemy.
As for insults, enough Creationists have told me that I am not a Christian, that I am going to Hell, etc. etc. for disbelieving them, that I amaze myself at my moderation.
I recently watched the movie "Inherit the Wind", and wonder if there is a parallel. For those that don't know the story, in the 50's (it's a true story) a young science teacher was arrested and prosecuted for teaching Darwin's Theory of Evolution in favour of Creationism in a state school located in the "buckle of the bible belt" in southern USA.
I thought it was an extremely good movie, and wonder if this is maybe a reversal of that situation (to an extent).
My apologies if this has already been covered.
quote:
I'm not sure why Genesis needs to mean a one day creation, I didn't see any references there.
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
[QUOTE] I'm not sure why Genesis needs to mean a one day creation, I didn't see any references there.
Genesis 1:1-5 (NIV) - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light "day" and the darkness he called "night". And there was evening, and there was morning – the first day."
Please forgive the lengthy opening quote, but just wanted to have it there to see. God did make the earth and the heavens in one day, he didn't complete them though. So your quote from Genesis 2:4b would be correct.
Incidentally, depending on which version you read, uit differs (ie. NIV Genesis 2:4b says "when the Lord God made made the earth and the heavens" no mention of the time is there.
Sieg
quote:
Incidentally, depending on which version you read, it differs (ie. NIV Genesis 2:4b says "when the Lord God made made the earth and the heavens" no mention of the time is there.
I haven't got a Hebrew text to hand so I can't be sure, but I suspect that the same word for "day" is used here as was throughout chapter 1. Now there isn't a problem if you take all this metaphorically; the Hebrew idiom at 2.4b can easily be understood as: "At the time that". But if you want to take things literally then one of the many differences between the first and second Creation stories is that the first takes place over 6 days, the second just 1. It seems to me that respect for the text itself demands a non-literalist understanding here.
I guess this is just proof that the bible isn't interpreted the same by everyone
What saddened me most was not that they held these opinions. As far as I am concerned diversity is great. Diversity will keep science out of a darkages mentality, where one is limited to a set view point or have scientific hell to pay. What upest me was; biologists writing about the second law of thermodynamics, mathematitians writing on fossils, chemists writing on evolution. And so few quotations from journals it made the mind boggle. Loads of quotations from creationist texts though. I would love to see such a book, where the scientists wrote about their own field and their own research and how their research contradicts evolution/old earth theories. But I am a snob.
I looked up the website mentioned earlier and was also amazed at their use of journal quotations. As soon as a scientist says 'this is a tricky problem' or 'we have to make this assumption' or 'we could be wrong' or 'we used a numerical model' they laugh and point their fingers. It is as though they feel they are in the right because they have the front to stand up and say they have the whole truth. While the researchers are saying that they are not perfect and more work needs to be done. I wonder which position is 1) more Godly and 2) more realistic?
I read somewhere that they teach in sex education that homosexuality is wrong and that pre marital sex is a sin.
Grace
A very gifted friend of mine was almost driven to suicide after experiencing that sort of attitude at school.
Perhaps I should write to my MP and see if a question can be asked about it.
I don't want money for education spent on teaching young gay and lesbian people to hate themselves.
L.
In fact you're correct about Emmanuel's one sided anti-gay teaching, here's the relevant story from the BBC during the section 28 debate
But that's a tangent and I digress.
Further developments on the teaching of Creationism - Tony Blair has supposedly sent in one of his top aides to support the school on this.
Blair adviser sent to settle school creationism row
Look like he's determined to support this abuse of science teaching, just to save a few million quid.
L.
quote:
Grace Morris:
I read somewhere that they teach in sex education that homosexuality is wrong and that pre marital sex is a sin.
quote:
Louise:
I don't want money for education spent on teaching young gay and lesbian people to hate themselves.
Ever heard of the phrase "Hate the sin, not the sinner?" According to the Bible, homosexuality IS a sin (actually an "abomination") and there's no denying that unless you decide that that particular verse was not originally meant to be in the Bible or something, a claim which really has no sort of proof.
There's nothing wrong with teaching that homosexuality is a sin if you are teaching the Bible. And there is no reason that it should make a homosexual want to kill him or herself. If it is taught properly, it will only make a person with homosexual feelings decide to try to change.
After all, Christian institutions also teach that stealing is a sin, but that doesn't make thieves want to commit suicide, not even habitual thieves. It is only meant to make them realize that WHAT THEY ARE DOING is wrong, but that THEY THEMSELVES are still loved by God, who wants them to change their sinful ways.
quote:
There's nothing wrong with teaching that homosexuality is a sin if you are teaching the Bible.
I personally find that the Bible is a very poor student. It just doesn't do what it is told.
'frin
Normal science and logic has a definite flow to it. Experiment leads to conclusion. A hypothesis is made and tested which leads to a conclusion which is used to form a new hypothesis which is then tested with another experiment which leads to another conclusion and so on. Evolution scientists on the other hand don't even have a positive first conclusion or base to go from. Evolution is still at the very first "hypothesis" stage. The hypothesis has been made ("man evolved") but it has yet to be proven by any experiment or study. The entire so-called "science" is based around an assumption that actually CANNOT be proven unless we are able to live for a few million years. Thus it is by definition a THEORY.
But Creationism is exactly the same. It, also, attempts to explain how things came to be. And it, just like evolution, is based around an assumption that cannot be proven until the end of time (if such a time ever comes).
So now I reach my conclusion. If both evolution and creationism share relatively equal amounts of proof, relatively equal amounts of disproof, both take equal amounts of faith to believe in and are both simply the two most widely-believed (because they are the most widely-taught) theories regarding our origins, then what makes one more of a science than the other? Why should one be taught publicly and not the other? It defies logic.
Many might argue that creationism brings religion into the picture and that such a thing should not be taught in a non-religious school. This is, to put it quite frankly, ludicrous. Until "naturalism" (which looks more like a religion when you give it a label like that) came into the picture, every single human culture and society on the face of the earth held the belief that everything was created by a supernatural (read: outside of our perception of nature) force of some sort. All but a precious few of these societies also gave that supernatural force the characteristic of intelligence, thus somewhat humanizing it and calling it "God", "Goddess" or "The gods".
I guess that my whole post here really boils down to one big truth: Creationism is just as scientific as Evolution and Evolution is just as much a theory as Creationism. And thus one big question:
WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL!? Why NOT teach creationism in school alongside evolution as long as it is taught in a purely non-religious way? What's the reasoning behind teaching one and not the other? I'd love to hear any ideas anyone has about it.
quote:
Originally posted by frin:
I personally find that the Bible is a very poor student. It just doesn't do what it is told.'frin
Heh heh...good one, I stand grammarically corrected.
But as a host on that board, I suggest that you first follow the link Alan has posted and get an idea of how the subject has been debated on these boards.
Remember that all the boards have different guidelines and that you need to read the different guidelines for each board before you post.
L.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
nemo, this thread is about Creationism not homosexuality so I'm not posting much here.
I understand, sorry about that. I used to be a regular in a similar bulletin board system which has since gone offline and it used to drive me nuts when people would change the subject and get way off-topic. I'll try not to...although my mind tends to wander so who knows...
quote:
Needless to say you narrow reading of a handful of debatable texts is likely to raise the temperature of debate around here.
Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to sound narrow-minded. But I do know what can and cannot be denyed and it cannot be denyed that the Bible plainly says homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord. Again, not homosexuals but homosexuality.
But as to rising the temperature of debate, I'm all for it. The only thing that can come from heated (yet hopefully honest and respectful) debate is a greater understanding of truth. And that is something we all need. Cheers!
quote:
Originally posted by nemo:
Both of them are equally scientific and upon doing some research, one appears just as valid as the other.
I'll address your rather strange idea of what is science later
quote:
Up to this point, a creator-less evolution has been taught in public schools as if it were proven truth. I'd say that about 90% of the non-Christian people I have talked with that were raised in public scools actually FIRMLY belive that the "big bang" and subsequent evolution of mankind from amoebas has been proven with 100% accuracy.
quote:
the idea of evolution, even all these years after Darwin, is still really nothing more than an extremely elaborate theory.
quote:
Normal science and logic has a definite flow to it. Experiment leads to conclusion. A hypothesis is made and tested which leads to a conclusion which is used to form a new hypothesis which is then tested with another experiment which leads to another conclusion and so on.
Much of the rest of your post seems to be saying that evolution and Creationism are equally good and scientific explanations of observed data. So I'll address one indisputable point of that data.
There are a very large number of different forms of life on earth that are ideally suited to the environment they live in.
How do we explain this datum? Creationism says "God created them all, and designed them to perfectly match their environment", evolution says "they evolved from early life forms as they adapted to the environment (that changes, partly as a response to the evolution of other life forms)". Taken like that, both are equally valid. However, we have to ask the question "what predictions do the two theories make?"
Creationism predicts .... what? That the world is static and doesn't change because it's how God designed it? I'm not sure if I've ever come across a scientifically testable prediction from Creationism. Well, bang goes any claim for it being science then!
Evolution predicts that if the environment changes traits within the species inhabiting that environment that encourage survival in the new environment will come to dominate, and that if no such traits exist then the species will die out due to competition from better adapted species. Thus, when environments change species change or die. We can test this prediction. We can look at real environments or make our own in the lab. What happens? We introduce a chemical pesticide to a field of wheat and those bugs that don't have some form of resistance to it die and new bugs that are resistant dominate the crop until a new chemical is used to control them. It works, it scientifically proves that evolution occurs. We have seen it happen in our own life time, we don't need to wait millenia to see it happen.
quote:
I guess that my whole post here really boils down to one big truth: Creationism is just as scientific as Evolution and Evolution is just as much a theory as Creationism.
Alan
quote:
Excuse me while I go and hide in a very deep bunker until it's safe to come out again.
((Wood))
(have I got the hang of how one hands out virtual moral support?)
L.
quote:
So now I reach my conclusion. If both evolution and creationism share relatively equal amounts of proof, relatively equal amounts of disproof, both take equal amounts of faith to believe in and are both simply the two most widely-believed (because they are the most widely-taught) theories regarding our origins, then what makes one more of a science than the other? Why should one be taught publicly and not the other? It defies logic.
That's a darned big 'if'.
And of course, they don't. They don't share same amounts of proof. They don't take equal amounts of faith to believe in. Hell, evolution isn't a belief - it's a scientific model! You don't believe in it in the same way you do a religious proposition - you accept (or don't) that it is the model that best explains the observed facts.
"only a theory" - give me strength! Read the rest of the thread, eh? We've been through this one and I'm sick to the back teeth of this particular piece of scientific illiteracy.
Back to "equal amounts of proof". OK. The bones that make up the mammalian inner ear are analogous to those that make up the reptilian jaw joint. Evolution predicts, therefore, that there must have been intermediates that show the development of one from the other, and at the same time the development of the mammalian jaw joint. Moreover, the animals in which this change is seen would be chronologically close - possibly even the same - as those where other reptile/mammal transitions are found.
Take a look, therefore, at this page, to see the series of transitionals listed for you.
Creationist explanations of these observations are eagerly awaited.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
((Wood))(have I got the hang of how one hands out virtual moral support?)
Dunno. Never done it myself. Made me feel better, so I guess you mut have.
Is it safe yet?
Hmm, Karl's frothing over there. I guess not.
Oh well. Back to the Fortress of Arrogance, then...
However, I do find that the majority of people responding in this topic are acting a little too closed-minded about the whole topic. I mean this merely as an observation so please do not take offense. I realize that even I am closed-minded at times, although I do try to avoid it and to correct it when it is pointed out to me.
Anyway, someone just said that Evolution IS a proven phenomenon. At first I started into a sort of disbelieving laughter, but upon thinking about it, I concede that you are at least partially correct. As mentioned on the first page of this thread, "micro-evolution" is observable fact, but "macro-evolution" is not. It has also been commented that Micro and Macro evolution really don't mean anything...that they are merely convenient buzzwords to get creationists out of a pinch. Well if you ask me, such a statement is only a convenient escape to get evolutionists away from an undeniable fact. Let me again comment on how science works. If you can observe something (thanks, by the way, for mentioning that, I was in a bit of a hurry writing my response last night and left it at experimentation) anyway, if you can observe something or make predictions based on theories or at least something very close to that effect, then that is good science. In my opinion, Evolution IS a good science because it attempts to explain things based on observation and experimentation. But what I was trying to get across is that creationism is exactly the same, which I will deal with shortly.
However, first let me say that no one can deny that there are more evolutionary scientists than creation scientists. And I believe that this is the only reason there APPEARS to be more supportive evidence of evolution than creation. It has only been in the past 10 or 20 years at the most that creation scientists have even begun to gather evidence and oservations in support of their case that would be comparable to the evidence collected for evolution theory. Up until recently, creationists didn't seem to feel the need to scientifically prove their stance because it was so widely accepted. Now, however, in the face of intense criticism from evolutionists, creation scientists are becoming more numerous and a mounting body of evidence suggests that creationism is indeed a respectable scientific theory...just like evolution.
I wanted to specifically address micro vs. macro evolution. As I said before, there IS a definite difference. What has been toted as micro-evolution is really nothing more than a proliferation of ALREADY EXISTING genes. It is "survival of the fittest", but the fittest never change what they are. For instance, encoded in the human genes is the possibility to grow very tall, or the possibility to grow very short throughout one's life. If conditions are optimal for tall people, there will be more and more and more tall people over time and less and less short people. And vice versa if conditions are optimal for short people. The point, however, is that inside every human being is the potential to either grow tall or short. Just because there is a greater number of taller people in the world today than there was thousands of years ago (which there apparently is) does not mean we are evolving into taller creatures. It merely means that a potential we ALREADY HAD has come to the surface in light of our suroundings and our condition.
By the way, I admit that I am not familiar with the Mosquito scenario that somebody mentioned, so if anyone might be able to explain that or provide a link for me I would be grateful. i am always open to new evidence and to changing my views if there is ample reason, but I have seen none yet.
Now, I could go on for literally hours about the shabby evidence that I have seen in support of the evolution theory, but I fear I would be wasting my breath. I'll just mention a couple of interesting things.
For instance, after MILLIONS of years of human evolution, it seems EXTREMELY odd that we are only able to find about 5 or 6 really respectable skeletons of our supposed ancestors. I realize that nature decays and destroys, but seriously...we're talking about MILLIONS of years worth of intermediate creatures that simply DO NOT seem to have existed. Evolution scientists are very vocal about the few partial skeletons they do have (all of which, by the way, have been shown could either be an extinct single breed of ape or a human with a birth defect), but nobody quite seems to get the point that out of the literally TRILLIONS of ancestors we supposedly had between us and monkeys, we can only find 5 or 6 sketchy, partial examples. To me, that seems more than unlikely, it seems absolutely ludicrous, but then again, I realize that some people may interpret the evidence differently.
Another interesting point: using the most common form of carbon-dating, a LIVING clam has been dated at several million years old. Now, either that clam has seen a lot of species come and go in his lifetime, or carbon-dating is not as reliable as people seem to think. In fact, scientists base their carbon-dating techniques on the ASSUMPTION (never good) that the atmosphere has always been exactly like it is today. But it only stands to reason that over billions of years, our atmosphere must have gone through a myriad of unpredictable changes, making the half-life of carbon vary greatly throughout the earth's history under different conditions. Thus, we cannot carbon-date anything with a very reliable amount of accuracy. It's unfortunate, but, from numerous studies I've seen, true.
Hmmm...I want to try to find a couple of things on the internet so I might have links to provide. I don't know if I'll be successful, but I'm going to cut this post short to go look, then I'll post more comments and questions in a bit.
Oh, but one more thing first. Quantum Physics IS a theory and it's proponents will readily admit it. Even the forerunners in the field have admitted that it is nothing more than an eloborate theory. However, as the theory continues to predict more and more positive results, it becomes more and more reliable of a theory. One key to taking the field closer to a fact would be the discovery and measure of gravitational waves...but I don't want to get into astropshysics on the creation/evolution thread so I'll leave it at that. Anyway, I just wanted to agree with you that a lot of sciences are still only elaborate theories. just because they appear to have the most evidence supporting them does not make them any less of a theory. It may be only because so many people are looking for the evidence to support their theories that so much evidence supporting them arises. Unpopular theories tend to have less advocates, less scientists, and thus are able to produce evidence more sparsely. Anyhow, off to the net, I'll post more thoughts later.
And by the way, I'm new here and don't mean to be overbearing, rude or ignorant regarding all of your ideas. Ihave the deepest respect for all of you, even if we do not agree and I just wanted to make sure everyone knows that. If I ever say something that sounds rude or judgemental, please take it to meant that I didn't have the time to word my ideas gently. As to this bulletin board, I always figure that the best thing to do is just jump right into the shark pool and hope I don't get eaten! So having said that, I believe I have just jumped off of the high dive into the deep end. Let's have a nice swim shall we?
quote:
Originally posted by nemo:
Another interesting point: using the most common form of carbon-dating, a LIVING clam has been dated at several million years old .... In fact, scientists base their carbon-dating techniques on the ASSUMPTION (never good) that the atmosphere has always been exactly like it is today. But it only stands to reason that over billions of years, our atmosphere must have gone through a myriad of unpredictable changes, making the half-life of carbon vary greatly throughout the earth's history under different conditions. Thus, we cannot carbon-date anything with a very reliable amount of accuracy.
1) The half-life of 14C is 5730y. This is a nuclear decay process and no amount of changes in atmospheric chemistry can change that. This is a fairly short half-life, so radio-carbon dating can only be used for samples less than a few 10s of thousands of years old. Any one claiming that radiocarbon dating can be used on (for example) dinosaur fossils doesn't know what they're talking about. There are a range of alternative radionuclide dating systems that are better suited to older rocks.
2) 14C is cosmogenic (ie: it is produced by the interaction of cosmic rays on the upper atmosphere), so radiocarbon dating does require an assumption to be made about the rate of 14C production in the past, which is dependent on cosmic ray flux (the cosmic component is effectively constant, though that due to the Sun varies with the earths distance from the Sun and the Suns own internal cycles) and atmospheric chemistry. The way radiocarbon dating works is to calibrate with an independent dating system (dendro-chronology, dating based on tree rings; you take a series of tree samples of known age - you count the rings backwards - and determine an apparent 14C age, you plot these up and get a calibration curve such that if you get a 14C apparent age from another sample you can determine its true age). Since 14C concentrations in water are different from air a variation on this is needed for marine samples.
3) Living creatures constantly recycle the carbon in their bodies, so the 14C level is kept constant in equilibrium with 14C levels in the atmosphere/ocean. 14C dating of living creatures cannot be used to say how old they are, just how much 14C is in their environment. Such analyses are routinely done to monitor levels of 14C associated with nuclear power generation, fuel recycling etc.
I'll be back at lunch time,
Alan
quote:
Originally posted by nemo:
However, I do find that the majority of people responding in this topic are acting a little too closed-minded about the whole topic. I mean this merely as an observation so please do not take offense.
Of course our minds are closed to fatuous drivel based on poor logic and bad science. Just an observation. No offence.
Dating of fossils is genrally done using relative ages. Not radioactive decay of indivdual elements of the layer. Yes, we date surrounding intrusive layers (with either Potassium - Argon or Rubidium - Strontium dating). These dates are used to say that the lower layers must be at least that old. Interestingly enough we actually have fuiner definition from fossil layering and relative ageing than can be achieved through radioactive decay dating.
Radioactive dating is the icing on the cake, not the cake. You get the date from the relative age of the rock/sediment formation in which fossil eveidence is found, not from the fossil itself.
I'm not a paleontologist, but your comments about the survival of fossils are interesting. How many fossils do we have for a single dinosaur in a 2 MA period? Not many. Why? Because they lived on land and so were unlikely to have become preserved in natural environmental conditions. Secondly the chances of digging in exactly the right place to find such a fossil are infinitesimally small. Same goes for proto human remains, very few of which are likely to have been altered to the stage at which they are called fossils.
I fear you are labouring under something of a misapprehension. The facts you quote seem to me to be typical of creationist literature, which is absolutely stuffed with errors, misquotes and unsupported assertions.
If you could cite the studies you mention in the errors in C14 dating, that would be a start. The whole field of radioisotope chronology is full of cross-checks and multiple independent techniques used to refine and calibrate measurements, it's not -- unlike the impression creationists give -- a matter of making one measurement and declaring a result! I'd very much appreciate looking at these studies -- in exchange, I'd like your critique of the methodologies mentioned in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
As for fossilisation, it's a very rare business indeed. Certain environments almost never produce fossils, and I believe that the current best-guess is that something under 10% of the species ever thought to have existed are known to have left fossil records. Why would you expect more fossils than have been found -- do you have a rationale for this beyond 'I can't believe it'? Currently, the level of creationist understanding of the fossil record is very poor -- as I understand it, there is no agreement among practitioners as to which fossil skeletons are hominids and which are other types.
Evolution is a fact. It has been observed in the wild many times, with speciation. Your observation that evolution occurs to aspects of organisms that merely explores potential they already had is, by and large, correct: evolution mostly occurs when an existing aspect of an organism acquires a new role. Evolution doesn't say that suddenly, a reptile becomes a bird -- indeed, if this was ever seen to happen, it would disprove much of current evolutionary theory! -- rather that there is a set of mutations to existing characteristics of reptiles that end up with birds. Scales become feathers, bones become lighter, circulation changes. Each step is minor, but as soon as one population of animals becomes unable to cross-breed with another, you have two species that can develop in different ways and diverge (and how would creationists stop so-called microevolution becoming macroevolution? What's the mechanism that says 'Stop here'?). Over time, this results in the huge diversity we see, and there is enormous evidence for this -- morphological, genetic, paleontological, geological, you name it, it paints a very consistent picture.
RM
quote:
Originally posted by nemo:
However, I do find that the majority of people responding in this topic are acting a little too closed-minded about the whole topic.
quote:
As mentioned on the first page of this thread, "micro-evolution" is observable fact, but "macro-evolution" is not.
quote:
But what I was trying to get across is that creationism is exactly the same, which I will deal with shortly.
quote:
It has only been in the past 10 or 20 years at the most that creation scientists have even begun to gather evidence and oservations in support of their case that would be comparable to the evidence collected for evolution theory.
quote:
Up until recently, creationists didn't seem to feel the need to scientifically prove their stance because it was so widely accepted.
quote:
Now, however, in the face of intense criticism from evolutionists, creation scientists are becoming more numerous and a mounting body of evidence suggests that creationism is indeed a respectable scientific theory...just like evolution.
quote:
I wanted to specifically address micro vs. macro evolution. As I said before, there IS a definite difference. What has been toted as micro-evolution is really nothing more than a proliferation of ALREADY EXISTING genes. It is "survival of the fittest", but the fittest never change what they are.
What is the height stuff supposed to say - it seems to suggest diet has an effect, which is irrelevant either way.
quote:
Now, I could go on for literally hours about the shabby evidence that I have seen in support of the evolution theory, but I fear I would be wasting my breath. I'll just mention a couple of interesting things.For instance, after MILLIONS of years of human evolution, it seems EXTREMELY odd that we are only able to find about 5 or 6 really respectable skeletons of our supposed ancestors. I realize that nature decays and destroys, but seriously...we're talking about MILLIONS of years worth of intermediate creatures that simply DO NOT seem to have existed.
quote:
Evolution scientists are very vocal about the few partial skeletons they do have (all of which, by the way, have been shown could either be an extinct single breed of ape or a human with a birth defect), but nobody quite seems to get the point that out of the literally TRILLIONS of ancestors we supposedly had between us and monkeys, we can only find 5 or 6 sketchy, partial examples.
If one assumes either the African plainlands or Australian theories of ape descent are the front runners, then neither of those locations are generally very good fossil preserving environments as of the time period suggested for human evolution.
Furthermore, you're confounding one descent theory with evolution per se.
quote:
Another interesting point: using the most common form of carbon-dating, a LIVING clam has been dated at several million years old. Now, either that clam has seen a lot of species come and go in his lifetime, or carbon-dating is not as reliable as people seem to think.
quote:
In fact, scientists base their carbon-dating techniques on the ASSUMPTION (never good) that the atmosphere has always been exactly like it is today.
quote:
Originally posted by nemo:
Oh, but one more thing first. Quantum Physics IS a theory and it's proponents will readily admit it. Even the forerunners in the field have admitted that it is nothing more than an eloborate theory .... Anyway, I just wanted to agree with you that a lot of sciences are still only elaborate theories. just because they appear to have the most evidence supporting them does not make them any less of a theory.
The theory of evolution, like all theories, has changed with new knowledge. Darwin proposed his thesis without any mechanism for the tranmission of features through generations, we now know that these features are coded into sections of DNA called genes. We also know that DNA is fairly susceptable to mutation through replication errors that can change single base pairs, duplicate or delete large sections of genes or even entire chromosomes; in most cases these mutations are disadvantageous to survival of the organism however some are neutral to survival (though may become advantageous as the environment changes) and others immediately advantageous. So, in addition to the broad picture Darwin saw we now have a detailed mechanism for transmission and modification of genetic features. Studies of the genetics of related species (or isolated groups of essentially the same species) have identified some of the genes that have changed as they evolved away from each other. Genetic changes can occur fairly rapidly.
quote:
I always figure that the best thing to do is just jump right into the shark pool and hope I don't get eaten!
Alan
So which is it? And which is worse for the creationist viewpoint?
quote:
Originally posted by nemo:
For instance, after MILLIONS of years of human evolution, it seems EXTREMELY odd that we are only able to find about 5 or 6 really respectable skeletons of our supposed ancestors. I realize that nature decays and destroys, but seriously...we're talking about MILLIONS of years worth of intermediate creatures that simply DO NOT seem to have existed
The number of intermediate ancestors of Homo Sapiens may, indeed, be very limited. Given the nature of evolution it is very unlikely that such a genetically homogeneous species as man occurred simultaneously in more than one location. This tends to support the "Garden of Eden" as a valid evolutionary theory. This suggests that all man's ancestry can be traced to a single population.
IIRC genetic research has shown that we are all decended from (probably) 6 or 7 (I forget which) women and possibly (although I can't support this, it is just a vague memory) a single man. The women are apparently not all contemporary with each other (make of that what you will).
Thus we may have a single tribe/clan/family of original Homo Sapiens growing into the human population today. This suggests that all the intermediate skeletons may be in a single location, probably somewhere in Africa. Makes one think of needles and haystacks.
1. I believe that evolution is an extremely elaborate theory, not a demonstrated fact.
2. I believe that Creation is a theory, not a demonstrated fact.
3. I believe that it takes substantial faith to believe that an eternal entity created everything.
4. I believe it takes even more faith to believe that this all came about by pure chance.
Having said that, let me share that my conclusion has been (and continues to be, the more evidence I see) that an eternally existing entity created everything existing in the physical sphere (including time itself) by way of causing a "big bang" and by way of forming life gradually over time by the process of evolution. Basically, I believe in both creation and evolution and see the two as completely complimentary and supportive of one another.
Now that you all know what I think, maybe tensions regarding the topic won't be so strained. What I'm saying is that there is no need to prove evolution to me and no need to try to disprove creation and no reason to think I am insulting anyone's beliefs because, more-or-less, I probably share the same beleifs with you in one way or another.
So...on to what we were discussing. I know I got a little off track from the "teaching creation in school" subject and I'd like to try to stick to it. So the most important thing to do is prove my assertation listed above (that both creation and evolution are equally sciences, and that both take faith to beleive in and thus both should be taugh as plausible options in school).
Now, I had mentioned carbon-dating. And thank you to Alan for that nice explanation. I realize there are different types of carbon dating. But I really only wanted to make a point more than to disprove the validity of carbon dating. That point being that even though there is a substantial margin of error in carbon dating techniques, it is generally spoken of among evolutionists as a reliable proof. It is definitely an interesting addition to the body of evidence towards supporting evolution, but nonetheless, it IS a field filled with unaccaountable errors and sometimes unpredictable variables. But again, I don't really want to get into a debate over carbon dating. I only want to show that carbon dates are "iffy" and thus they are not proof.
The same goes for the fossil record. Of course, I realize that the remains of most creatures will decay or be destroyed before they have a chance to fossilize. This does account for a significant chunk of the seemingly missing intermediate evolutionary steps. However, NO amount of logic can account, in my mind, for the absence of the literally trillions if not quadrillions of individual organisms that must have existed between our ape-ish ancestors and what we look like today. No matter how many times I bring up this argument, nobody ever seems to quite understand what trillions and quadrillions really implies. Those numbers are practically unfathomable. Yet we have something like 5 or 6 decent examples and that's it. I am not even looking for multiple examples of any particular intermediate stage. It just seems to follow logic that we would be able find at least one fossil to represent each of at least 100 or so of these different intermediate species. Really, even 100 good fossils would be less than 0.00000000001% of the total organisms that must have lived throughout the evolutionary process. And yet what are we left with? I think you already know the answer.
Now, as to creation being a science: It is true that there is no way to test and thus to disprove the existence of a so-called "super-natural" being with the ability to create matter and life. In that sense, creation ideas fall somewhat short of the generally accepted measure of a true "science". That is to say that, supposedly, if macro-evolution is false there should be some scientific experiment or observation that would be able to disprove the theory. Thus, evolution purports that it submits itself to scrutiny in a way creation does not.
But to be fair, we must look at this in perspective. I ask you, and please be honest, does anyone seriously think that there could ever be a single difinitive experiment with the ability to disprove evolution, were it not true? Even if you put aside your preconcieved ideas that evolution is true...what I mean is...IF evolution actually were not true, and, given the data we have already observed thus far, do you really think there could be ANY final observation that would convince scientists of evolution's untruth? I doubt it. They would still find ways to argue around the stated observation. For instance, let's say that after exactly three million repeats of an extremely elaborate and possibly difinitive experiment, scientists came up with the same result every single time: that micro-evolution does occur, but that it is impossible for a helpful and completely new enzyme or protien to come into being in an organism, without causing the organism trauma and causing it to die or be "naturally selected" for elimination from the gene pool. Thus, the conclusion of said three million experimental repeats would be that macro-evolution does not occur.
BUT, evolutionists could quite easily say that since macro-evolution is a random and natural process occurring over millions of years, the scientists performing said experiments must simply have not performed the experiment enough times yet. Even if the experiment were then done a TRILLION times with the same results, evolution scientists would argue that perhaps nature's random-selecting ability has not yet "chosen" to randomly select the mentioned experiments for successful evolution. By saying that macro-evolution occurs completely randomly and over millions of years time, it has become just as much of a non-science as belief in a supernatural entity with creative powers. There is quite literally no way to difinitively disprove large-scale evolution, just as there is no way to difinitively disporove the existence of a supernatural entity by natural means. It is beyond the reach of experimentation and observation to completely disprove evolution. Thus, evolution and creation theories find themselves, in this respect anyway, in the very same leaky boat.
I really hope that you all can at least understand what it is I'm trying to get across. No one will ever difinitively be able to prove or disprove either theory. Admittedly, to many people the idea of anything supernatural seems silly, but, once again, the same thing goes both ways. Many believers in the creation theory find that the mere statistical unlikelihood of successful evolution occuring makes it equally silly.
I, for one, beleive in a supernatural creator power not because I am immersed in any religion (because I am not) but because of what I percieve as undeniable evidence of intelligent design. Also, because in this physical world of ours, everything that we can OBSERVE passes away. Everything is temporary. Everything we see in the physical world is temporal. Therefore, my logic curcuits have led me to believe that the physical world itself is also temporal. Thus, at some point in time, the physical world we see, and indeed time itself, must have been created or spawned into being by something that is outside of our observable sphere of nature...hence, something "super-natural". This is where a creative power comes into the picture.
I really hope that I haven't missed anything and I hope I wasn't to vauge and didn't jump around too much in this post, but I'm actually sort of busy and just typing as I think so please forgive me. I'm a writer and I've already had a hard time of forgiving myself for posting this message without even reading over it. Agh!
Anyhow, I'd like to know what you all think of this train of thought. It is the reason I believe both theories should be taught in school. And please let me stress to the utmost that I believe "creation science" should be taught from a purely and difinitively non-religious perspective. Basically, we should teach the theory, not that "God" created everything, but that some force which is beyond our observations of the physical world and that exists esentially "outside of" time caused everything we experience and observe to come into being. Thus, the use of the word "supernatural force". And I see no reason why a supernatural force can't exist simultaneously with natural forces. In fact, I have a hard time understanding how one or the other could not exist. In our experience of the natural realms, everything has it's opposite. So then, is it so illogical to assume that nature itself has an existig oppisite?
So again, I conclude by saying that in the matter of evolution and creation, one is logically just as sound as the other and both require substantial faith to fully submit to. Thus, they are on relatively equal philosophical and scientific grounds and should be taugh as co-existing theories which can be, but do not have to be exclusive of one another.
Thoughts?
quote:
You clearly know little or nothing of the history of science - anti-evolutionary theories have existed right from the dawn of the concept of evolutionary theories (which, by the way, emerged long before Darwin systematised them). Indeed, many early paleontologists were engaged on one side or other of the creation debate from the off - and furthermore the creationists in many cases managed to get many of the fossil specimens and prohibit access to those with whom they did not agree.
Perhaps I worded my ideas incorrectly. I never said that creation scientists have only begun to gather data in recent years. What I meant, and what I think I did say, is that it is only in recent years that creation scientists have begun to come up with evidence that is comparable to that gathered by the much larger evolutionist community. Creationists are a much smaller percentage of the field and thus it has taken them much more effort and cooperation between a smaller number to be able to put together evidence that would be accepted and evenly balanced with that of the evolutionist community.
quote:
I don't see any supporting data quoted for your argument.
Appy polly logies then! This is something observed. Look in the history books. Creation was taught because that's just the way it was. When scientists came out with data, creationists would say, "Yes, that fits with our ideas!" Now things are different. Evolutionsts were forced by unacceptance to provide a great and growing body of evidence to the skeptics. Creationists sort of sat idly by, doing research of course and working their angles and whatnot, but doing it more to try to disprove evolution than to try to prove creationism. They got behind and soon, evolutionists had such a great body of evidence and such an elaborate theory that it became more and more widely accepted. Recently, creation science has changed course from trying to counter the idea of evolution, to trying simply to prove their own ideas of creation. Oy, I have difficulty getting my ideas across sometimes, sorry...
quote:
I've studied geology a lot - fossilisation is an extremely rare occurrence excepting in a very few specialised locations.
Ahem...MILLIONS and BILLIONS of years and TRILLIONS if not QUADRILLIONS of intermediate ancestors...
No matter how rare fossilization is, the chance of fossilization occurring is much greater than the astronomical chances of life emerging spontaneously or of one creature succesfully becoming another. I'm sure you've seen the calculations.
Oh, bummer I have to go for now...
quote:
Originally posted by nemo:
Having said that, let me share that my conclusion has been (and continues to be, the more evidence I see) that an eternally existing entity created everything existing in the physical sphere (including time itself) by way of causing a "big bang" and by way of forming life gradually over time by the process of evolution. Basically, I believe in both creation and evolution and see the two as completely complimentary and supportive of one another.
Let me briefly explain my view. Evolution (physical and biological) provides a complete scientific explanation for the origins of the universe as we observe it. On top of this there are philosphical explanations that complement the science. These include an atheistic/materialistic view (that there is nothing beyond the universe at all and the scientific description is all there is), a deist view (a supernatural being started off the universe with a set of laws that would result in the universe we see), and a theist view (a supernatural being is intimately involved in the ongoing development of the universe, upholding it's very being). The scientific description cannot be used to prove any of these philosophical positions. I, by the way, believe the last of these views.
I would willingly see the different philosophical positions taught in schools in the context of a philosophy/religious education class. I do object to a philosophical position being taught as being an essential component of science education.
Alan
Now I see what the problem is. I am in the USA and so I haven't heard as much detail regarding this issue you are dealing with in the UK. I was under the impression that the only thing they want to teach in schools is the theory of a supernatural force setting things into being. I do agree with you that teaching a young-earth creation theory is based purely off of the Bible and thus has not scientific OR logical backbone, so to speak. Anyway, I think I was probably resposible for having my own position misunderstood since I completely neglected to mention what my position even was.
Thanks for your courtesy Alan. Since that is cleared up, what do you think about having schools teach "intelligent design" or "supernatural creation" along with evolution, if it is taught from a non-religious perspective and if it is taught primarily as an old-earth theory? Currently, even that is banned from our schools in the USA.
Alan
Teh problem is that you are not seeing a distinction between the teaching of a scientific enquiry and how to go about this and a philosophical enquiry which is a different approach to a problem.
If we start attempting to teach in a science class about unobservable forces where is the science? It isn't science anymore. Mixing scientific theories with philosphical approaches is what makes creation scientist look stupid in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by nemo:
what do you think about having schools teach "intelligent design" or "supernatural creation" along with evolution, if it is taught from a non-religious perspective
Alan
I am waiting for someone to tell me what scientific methodology leads them to religious texts or religious faith to assist in the formulation of their scientific theories and hypotheses. What is the scientific methodology that allows consultation of religious texts and religious faith in formulating hypotheses or theories?
There is none. Supernatural "theories" are non-scientific on their face and therefore scientifically invalid, which is why they should not be taught as science in public schools, nor equated with valid scientific theories in public debate.
"If you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer."
I really like that quote. And by the way Jim, I agree that consulting religious texts is not scientific at all. I don't think too many people would argue with you on that point. That's not what I meant to be addressing. Sorry If I gave that impression. I am only talking about teaching the theory of a supernatural force causing everything we experience in the physical sphere to come into being.
Oh, and I can relate to your position with your Father, mine is exactly the same, except Baptist. Same with my mom and two sisters. Sometimes it makes me question myself, thinking, "Well my parents seem pretty inteligent and all, but I don't agree with them...so is there something I'm missing or not understanding?" But I always evaluate things and end up right back where I am, still disagreeing with them. At times, it's odd feeling like you're the only one in the family who really understands the undeniability of science and good logic.
And speaking of which, that's exactly the point of wanted to get to here...LOGIC. In my very humble opinion, good logic which flows from observation/experimentation is just as much of a science as the physical sciences. In fact, it bases itself off of the exact same principles and has guidlines and rules and usually springs from physical observations and behavioral experimentation and such.
I understand that what I am speaking about here is what is normally delegated to the field of "Philosophy" and as thus, it becomes nothing more--to the "real" scientific community anyway--than the immaginitive ravings of madmen. But this line of perception is entirely...well...illogical.
As I'm sure you are already aware, there are specific rules to good and undeniable logical flow. For instance, we know that the following statement is a so-called 'logical fallacy': "If kids use marijuana, they'll end up using harder drugs like crack!"
That is a logical fallacy known commonly as the "Slippery Slope Argument". It is bad logic because we cannot prove that one thing will inevitably lead to the next.
Then again, we also have certain forms of logical flow that are undeiable, solid proof of things, and which are, more often than not, based on observations and physical and mathematical/statistical science. For instance, in the mathematical sciences, we can observe two objects--
Rectangle: a flat shape with four 90 degree angles and four sides, with opposite sides of equal length
and Square: a flat shape with four 90 degree angles four sides of equal length.
Now we can use these observed structural definitions to make a logical argument. This is, of course a pretty basic example. Anyway, good logic actually takes a few steps of explanation to reach a conclusion. So a solid logical argument in this instance might say:
"Because the only stipulation of rectangles is to have 90 degree angles, parallel sides and opposing sides of equal length, and squares also have 90 degree angles, parallel sides and opposing sides of equal length, this means that all squares are rectangles. However, since squares have all four sides of equal length, but rectangles do not neccesarily have all four sides of equal length, that means that not all rectangles are necessarily squares. We then reach the final conclusion: All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares."
Based on our mathematical observations, we reach a logical conclusion that we can be equally as sure of as we can be of our mathematical observations.
Let's call that one "Conclusion A". Now let's say that using two other mathematical observations, we had reached a conclusion regarding 3-dimensional shapes that have similar dimensional appearance to squares and rectangles, but in a 3-dimensional way. We'll call that one "Conclusion B". Thus we have two seperate conclusions which are equally as reliable as the mathematical observations from which they were originally made. Doing good so far right?
Now, hold on tight because this is where we begin the first step across that terrible an ferocious invisible line that physical scientists have drawn between themselves and philosophy. This is where we might take those two equally reliable logical conclusions, and put them together to form a third conclusion in a similar manner. We'll call it "Conclusion AB". This new conclusion would be, once again, equally as reliable as the math or science from which the original observations, A and B, were made.
However, it is different in a very key way: It is a conclusion based off of two seperate conclusions, rather than based on direct observation. We can say that Conclusion AB is "indirectly based on direct observation". But, as I hope I have shown, it is just as stable and reliable as mathematical or physical sciences. Of course, really good, really complex philosophy will often end with a conclusion based off of 6 conclusions which were each made by a combination of 12 conclusions which in turn were each made by a combination of 36 conclusions which in turn were each made by a combination of 340,000 observations...etc, etc...
The point is that as long as you begin a philosophical explanation with some form of accepted scientific observation (i.e.- math, statistics, physics, life science, etc), and as long as every argument and conclusion you make along way follows pure good logic, then your so-labeled "Philosophical" conclusion should be respected and accepted and taught as being just as scientific and valid as physical science, mathematical science, and all the other sciences.
I suggest we change the name of the entire field from "Philosophy" to "Logical Science" and subject it to scrutiny.
Because, again in my opinion, philosophy is not good philosophy unless it follows good logic based off of observation. In other words, for a philospher to say, "I believe in a creator power that is a mother Goddess because I came from my mother and my dad was an asshole!" is not good logic at all. There is no accompanying logical explanation of exactly why he thinks there is a creator entity in the first place and even with that, he would need a logical explanation--based off of observation and deduction--of why we should think that a creator entity would be anything like his family!
So as you can see, I'm not talking about blind religious thought. If someone tries to philosophize and is basing their ideas off of fancifil speculations or out of nothing but religious texts, then all I can seem to hear out of their mouth is "Baa-aa, Baaa-aa!" (sheep noises by the way) or "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..."
That's why I've been disappointed with most churches, mosques and temples I have ever gone to. I realize that the preacher is basing his entire train of thought not on observational logic of his true surroundings, but on a "feeling", if you will, that there is "something bigger out there". Now, I'm not criticizing someone for feeling like maybe there's something bigger out there. Even I get the feeling from time to time. But, then again, sometimes I also get the feeling that this life is really all there is. I know that feelings and emotional judgement are flawed in the most unbearable way and thus have no foothold in the science of logic.
My friends, my idea of GOOd and PURe philosophy...of RELIABLe philosophy...is that it must begin with physical observation, with behavioral observation, with experimentation, with the physical world. And from there it must follow stable logical links and deductions rather than the path of locigal fallacies such as the Slippery Slope Argument, or the Strawman Argument or the many other common fallacies. Over a long enough path of deduction and combination of facts and conclusions, you can reach some very interesting conclusions about the world. Usually, physical science is the base, which ends up being combined with behavioral science and mathematical science and all the rest and the "bigger" your conclusions get (in other words, the more all-encompassing of a topic you are heading toward, i.e.- creation), the more you will start to resort to statistical science. You learn to reach conclusions and to hold to them only as firmly as their statistcal relevancies will allow. (Do you agree that this is a fair assesment of the field of logical philosophy in it's pure form?)
Here's an example of a fairly "Big" philosophical/logical conclusion which ends being based on a process of elimination and statistical likelihood (I won't give my entire reasoning here because it would take books to explain):
First, let me say that I believe there is an eternally existing creator entity which exists outside of the sphere of time and I believe that entity created or set into motion the entire realm of the physical and time-bound world that we experience.
Why do I believe that? Is it because I feel like there is something bigger out there, as they say? No. Is it because I was taught to believe in a God? No (In fact, that had the reverse effect).
I belive it because my observations thus far (and I do say "thus far" because I am far from knowing anything even close to everything and probably alway will be) have lead me to three possible conlusions:
Option A-
A universe consisting of matter combined into incredibly complex working systems which are combined into systems of systems of systems of systems of systems which are bound tightly to the construct of time (which is itself an amazing concept) and which are constantly growing and changing as they move through time, came into existence quite suddenly and out of absolute and incomprehensible nothingness with no guidance, for no reason and with no explanation.
Option B-
Above mentioned universe is an eternally existing singularity which changes throughout time. It has existed into the eternal past and will exist into the eternal future, constantly changing. Also, we must assume that nothing exists in any way, shape or form-of-conception outside of our experiential sphere of time and the physical world.
Option C-
Above mentioned universe and all of it's complexity was "created" (either purposefully or inadvertently) or shall we say, "set into motion" with rules and incredibly complex and incomprehensible patterns by an "entity" of some sort that exists "eternally" in the sense that it exists outside of--and is not governed by--the sphere of time and the physical world.
So those are the options I am left with. Option A, the idea of "something coming from nothing" for no reason and with no guidance, simply defies our very understanding of the rules of the universe. It is, so to speak, statistically, incomprehensibly unlikely based on observable physical law. Option B, the idea that perhaps the physical world itself is eternal, is a little bit more acceptable of an idea. However, since my observations of the physical world have shown me that nature repeats itself both on small and large scales, and that everything physical in our "small" perception is temporary, and eventually decays and is destroyed, I have deduced that the physical world itself will most likely decay or be destroyed at some far point in the future. I also conclude that it could not have existed eternally into the past for similar yet opposite reasons.
Thus, I am left with option C. There must be something outside of my ability to physically observe that exists esentially "outside of" the construct of time and physics. In fact, there must have been something which caused the constructs of time and physics themselves to come into existence out of nothingness. And there I reach my best conclusion. We can reach the conclusion by using observation and the basic sciences and by following logical, stable deduction from those sciences, and it is falsifiable.
If a scientist can show me how it is actually statistically somewhat more likely than is currently percieved that something can come into existence out of nothing and with no guidance, then I will abandon the thought of an outside force. Proving that living and functioaning organisms can spontaneously emerge from non-living material would also lend credence to the idea of a creator-less universe. Or if scientists can explain to me how the physical realms and the construct of time actually are very likely to have existed eternally into the past and that they will exist eternally into the future, and that this physical realm is the full extent of all things existing in any way, shape or form, then I will also abandon the idea of a creating force. So you see, it is falsifiable. And indeed, it may be difficult to falsify, and in fact, one may have a very rough time trying to falsifly the idea. But since it is falsifiable, by definition it is science and thus the fact that it is difficult to falsify only lends support to the idea that, not only is it a scientific theory, but it is actually a fairly good one.
Difficult to falsify? Yes. Any more difficult to falsify than evolution? No. On fairly equal and stable scientific grounds then? Yes.
Well, I really hope that all makes sense and was easy enough to follow. I hope it might help my position make more sense to all of you. That is, my position that this idea could be taught as a scientific theory alongside the "godless evolution" theory. It is a perfectly scientific form of observation and deduction, and it is NOT as fanciful as some people seem to think.
Do you agree that this is a fair assesment of true so-called "Philosophy", or what I call logical science in it's pure form?
And if the proper curriculum were put together, why couldn't it be taught from a scientific perspective alongside evolution theory?
I'm not saying we teach it as truth, because I think it is important that we don't teach evolution as truth either. But we can teach them both as very good theories. After all, isn't a good theory one that accounts for all observed phenomenon?
And all that it really ought to be is one part of the class, perhaps one section of the book. It should not take the place of the study of data, no, by no means. But it should be offered up as an acceptable and possible explanation of the complexity and very existence of the data that is studied.
What'dya think about it? Do you still think me a fool? 
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Yaffle tells us that creationism is falsifiable, gbuchanan (unless I'm mistaken - it wouldn't be the first time) that it isn't.So which is it? And which is worse for the creationist viewpoint?
YEC is falsifiable, which is what most people mean by "creationism".
If you take "creationism" to be the idea that the world or (more precisely I suspect) the universe was by some means caused to come into being by a creator, whatever means by which life as we now know it came to exist, which may include evolution, then I fail to see how creationism is falsifiable, because essentially you come down to a "does God exist" type question, which I don't believe is scientifically falsifiable.
The definition of Creationism as used in this thread, seems to me to be more the former, which in fairness is falsifiable.
However, though I'm convinced by evolution, I think that God is in some sense at its root, and thus I'm probably a Creationist in the latter view - it's part of my faith, not my science.
Hope that clarifies matters.
It does indeed. My bad.
Isn't that what Nemo just said?
quote:
Perhaps I worded my ideas incorrectly. I never said that creation scientists have only begun to gather data in recent years. What I meant, and what I think I did say, is that it is only in recent years that creation scientists have begun to come up with evidence that is comparable to that gathered by the much larger evolutionist community. Creationists are a much smaller percentage of the field and thus it has taken them much more effort and cooperation between a smaller number to be able to put together evidence that would be accepted and evenly balanced with that of the evolutionist community.
I just don't find such a statement to be consistent with the facts, nor is it internally consistent. I'm not aware of any such data as you report - again, could you report some which can be falsified or otherwise?
quote:
Appy polly logies then! This is something observed. Look in the history books. Creation was taught because that's just the way it was. When scientists came out with data, creationists would say, "Yes, that fits with our ideas!" Now things are different. Evolutionsts were forced by unacceptance to provide a great and growing body of evidence to the skeptics. Creationists sort of sat idly by, doing research of course and working their angles and whatnot, but doing it more to try to disprove evolution than to try to prove creationism. They got behind and soon, evolutionists had such a great body of evidence and such an elaborate theory that it became more and more widely accepted. Recently, creation science has changed course from trying to counter the idea of evolution, to trying simply to prove their own ideas of creation.
Again, that's simply not an accurate recounting of the history of science relevant here - many of them were explicitly looking for data to support the concept of a created earth, that effort indeed predates even the genesis of the possibility of natural variation.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just a quick comment on your numbers of individuals. Taking the human evolutionary chain. We evolved from a common ancestor to the chimps about 6million years ago. Taking an average life time for a hominid as about 20 years that is 300 thousand generations. The total hominid population at any one time was certainly less than a million until very recently, and for the vast bulk of human evolution in Africa the total population would have been no more than a few tens of thousand, so I'll take 100000 as a reasonable average. That gives a total hominid population of 30 billion (20% of these hominids are currently alive!).Alan
There are species, such as horses for example, where we can, due to the relatively good fossil records available, identify dramatic changes in very short periods of geologic time.
Thus, though one method of evolution would suggest billions, other viable means of evolution would suggest that the critical fossil sample range would be much smaller. In the case of a savannah environment, usually suggested as that in which humans evolved, we'd be very lucky to have many if any taxonomically useful samples from populations which could be substantially less than one billion.
Indeed, the tracability not only of homonids but of several other species in that environment and time period is poor, and fossil samples are highly varied. It's an open question as to what the population profiles, in terms of populousness and diversity, applied to that environment generally, and it forms one of the more stimulating areas of research in the field of paleontology.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood: master of the uncanny:
Thanks, gbuchanan.It does indeed. My bad.
Isn't that what Nemo just said?
I'm not exactly sure - I can't see how one can provide scientific evidence for what Nemo seems to argue for, though. If there were scientific evidence, then that would in a sense make God discernable in some scientific sense, and I'm not sure whether that's the case.
Anyhow, if Nemo's position is a philosophic one, then I don't see why scientific evidence for God as a discernable agent in creation is necessary. If it's a scientific point, then clearly there is. I'm not sure what Nemo intends to communicate.
Although I accept that philosophies, like science, are logical constructions built on observations I would say that deciding between the option nemo outlined requires, at some point, a step which is not logical - let's call it a step of faith. Thus the resulting "faith position" (for want of a better term) is itself not science. For some faith positions that step of faith is taken very early in the process, for example Young Earth Creationists take a faith step that a literal reading of Biblical texts is a more reliable account of origins than evolution and then select data to support that view.
On the other hand, if you accept and follow through the logic of the scientific evidence you get to the point where you get an (almost) complete picture of the origins of the universe. You are then left with three choices each of which can't be rejected on the basis of the scientific evidence (these are similar to nemos 3 options):
1) the universe exists purely by chance
2) the universe exists because of some (impersonal) Necessity
3) the universe exists because of the actions of a (personal) Creator
(the option that the universe just is and it's pointless discussing it is too boring to submit to the debate)
I see no way any of these positions can be arrived at by logical steps alone; somewhere along the line a step of faith is needed.
Now, as I see it, intelligent design arguments try to replace that step of faith by a step of logic. Specifically they say that option 3 predicts there will be clear evidence of an intelligent personal designer, whereas options 1 and 2 predict that everything will be explicable without a designer. But, this is a position that can't be proved either way; there is no way of knowing whether something that looks like design but is currently unexplained will never be explained, nor can we say that when everything that can be explained is whether there are any remaining inexplicable examples of design. ID seems to be just an elaborate version of a God of the Gaps argument.
quote:
originally posted by nemo:
Do you still think me a fool?
I completely understand what you are saying about it coming down to a question of "Is there a God?" and I actually held that same opinion for years. However, it now seems to me that one can form an argument from known established logical methods in such a way that by a process of examination and elimination, one can arrive at the "best possible answer" without needing to pose the question "Is there a God", which is a question that is definitely beyond physical methods to test, unless somebody has some new fancy patented "God-detector/measurer" or something that I don't know about. Amyway, I was saying that you all have to at least agree with me that the only thing we can ever expect or aim for in this life is the "Best possible answer" right. Someone even mentioned a few posts back the fact that this is one of the key points that makes something a good science. A good scientist may have an excellent answer, and perhaps it is the best answer we could imagine, but to strengthen its reliability he admits that if new data were to arrive, at any moment which said something to the contrary of his anser, then his entire opinion could be shifted. Thus it becomes something that he is submiting to scrutiny.
Now this is where you are thinking to yourself, "That very well may be so, but it is impossible to accurately scrutinize and thus to falsifly the existence of God".
And it is here that I ask you to consider the validity and scientific value of a conclusion that is reached in the following manner:
quote:
Here is the Problem:
There are three objects placed in a row. One of them is red and the other two are not red. One way of discovering which of the three objects is red is by a process of elimination. So let's say we ask one question of each object:
Q1: Is the first object red?
A: No.
Q2: Is the second object red?
A: No.
Now we have a solution. We have already been told that one of the objects is red. Since the first and second object were not red, we can deduce that the third object must be the red one (we assume we have already confirmed that one of the objects is indeed red). It would, of course, be even better proof if we asked "Is the third object red?" and the answer was "Yes." and even better yet if we could actually describe the meaning of "red" and observe the objects to confirm our conclusion. I would submit that nearly every scientific endeavor is some part or form of this process.
Okay, pretty simple right? So you're thinking, "Where in the hell is he going with this?" Well, I'm going to transfer that same line of basic reasoning over to our optional explanations of why we exist. That is, the same options I mentioned in my post above.
There are three options. Unless someone can suggest another option, and I don't believe there are any, we can make the perfectly sound, logical and scientific observation that one of these three options must be true, just like we knew that one of the three objects was red in the illustration above. So let's use that process of elimination again to decide which of the three following possible explanations of existence is the most scientifically sound theory.
OPTION 1- Our experiential realm (meaning every part of the physical universe and time) came into being out of complete nothingness with no force to cause it to happen.
Q. DOES THIS EXPLAIN WHAT WE OBSERVE IN NATURE? (Thus is it a good theory)
A. Not very well. In nature there are extremely complex systems which, although appearing completely random, also appear to follow certain rules. The purpose of physical science is to try to decipher these rules. One rule which is more-or-less universally accepted is the rule of cause and effect. Nothing happens without something causing it to happen. Therefore, in a very fundamental way, the idea of the universe having come into being spontanteously out of nothing with no driving force defies our understanding of one of the most foundational principles of science, and particularly of physics. So Option A seems like a highly unlikely option and we move on to the next.
Option 2- Our experiential realm is eternal. It has eternally existed and will exist eternally.
Q. DOES THIS EXPLAIN WHAT WE OBSERVE IN NATURE?
A. Not very well. Everything that we can observe within our experiential realm of time and physical matter has been observed to be temporal. Therefore, we might deduce that it is highly likely that time and the physical world themselves are similarly temporal. Of course, this is still a better option that Option 1 because it accounts for everything, including the idea that both time and matter are eternal and thus they did not require any metaphysical force to set them into being. And if we say this, we can also more comfortably say that there is nothing "supernatural" like a god because it is not required in order to complete the equation. Still though, our observations of the physical world seem to suggest that everything came into being at a particular point (the beginning of time), right? This is observational science. Therefore it takes faith to assume, in spite of our scientific observations, that matter has actually existed eternally into the past. Do make such an assumption is to ignore our scientific observations of the physical world. Therefore this is a somewhat illogical standpoint. So we move to the next option in our very scientific process of elimination. We could say that since options 1 and 2 are highly unlikely, that option 3 must be the more likely option, but this is a little bit more complex than simply saying that an object is red. In that case, we had two simple options for each object when we inquired about it's color. Yes or No. In this case however, we are getting into likelihood rather than clear cut yesses and no's. Our aim is not to prove that one of the three options is true, but to show which one is the most highly likely. And if we are honest, isn't that exactly what evolution theory and physics and mathematics do? Present the most likely answers? Just because not very many people dispute these possible answers does not make them any more true.
Option 3- A force existing apart form time and the physical universe caused it somehow to come into existence.
Q. DOES THIS EXPLAIN WHAT WE SEE IN NATURE?
A. Fairly well. If our universe came into existence at a specific point in time (the beginning of time) as our observations of good science seem to imply, it would thus very likely require a force of some sort to have set it into motion.
Action->Reaction
Cause-->Effect
So it appears that since option 1 is somewhat contradictory to our understanding of science, and since option 2 is also somewhat contradictory to our understanding of science, and since option 3 fulfills the requirements of fitting our understanding of science (a cause for an effect, a force for the reaction) and since there seem to be no other alternatives, we can make the very scientific deduction from observation that "It appears far more likely that an outside force caused time and the physical world to come into existence, than it is likely that our said universe came into existence with no driving force or that it has existed eternally into the past.
So you see, using scientific observation and using the scientific process of elimination we conclude that creation theory is more likely than either of the other options. I feel that that is a scientific deduction and a scientific theory.
So if it appears to be more likely than the other two options, and if it is a scientific observation as well, why do we not offer it in scientific textbooks and present it at least as one of the scientifically valid theories on the matter? The other ideas are not as likely and yet they are taught! The schools are merely afraid to insinuate that something metaphysical might exist, and in fact that it is more likely that such an entity does exist than that it does not. It sounds too religious to everyone. But it is NOT religious. It is reliable logical deduction. And if that is not allowed to be taught then we must not teach the idea of everything coming from nothing, or of matter existing eternally, because both of those ideas essentially contradict our scientific observational findings, which are the exact thing everyone is trying to make sure we teach. There is a huge double-standard there.
Again, I only want the theory of an existing metaphysical force to be discussed equally. It does not need to interfere with the rest of the course. A key beginning of the physical sciences in school is an exploration of theories of how the universe began. Right now, this usually includes nothing but a description of the big bang and a couple of theories about how maybe nothing at all existed prior to the bang, or maybe it was some strange eternal particle of matter. Doesn't it seem strange that both of those theories defy our observed laws of the physical world, and yet we teach them?
A force setting it all into being is more likely, so let's simply add that theory and an explanation of that theory to that particular part of the textbooks, and have it briefly discussed along with, and in the same manner as those theories about the nothingness and the sudden inexplainable big bang, or about the strange eternal particles of matter.
Trying to explain exactly what this metaphysical force might be is where our current observational knowledge falls extremely short of any sort of sound explanation. However, as I have shown, the very fact that the universe seems to have become something out of nothing is evidence toward the idea of SOME FORCE having caused it to come into being. Call it "God" if you like, or "Aum" or "The Womb of Tathagata" or as George Lucas dubbed it "The Force". Call it whatever, I don't care. Personally, I'd rather scientize it and remove it completely from the field of speculative theology. It doesn't have to do with the existence of "God", it is merely the best explanation drawn from scientific observation and so to me it is more of a scientific force than a "spiritual" one.
By "metaphysical" I do not mean like ghosts and spirits, but something more like a new conception of a "dimension" outside of the laws of time and the physical laws, and some"thing" within that outside "dimension", somehow executed an action or force which caused this temporal realm to exist.
Therefore, it is not really a question of "Is there a god". If you will allow me to refer back to the exaple of the three objects as relating to our three options of existnece, asking "Is there a God" is akin to asking "Is there such a thing as 'red'?" It doesn't matter if there is such a thing as red. The point is that according to scientific observation and logic, if someones tells you he has three objects and one of them is "krizz-moft", you can use the same process of deduction to discover which one it is. Understandably, you still won't know what it implies to say that object 3 is "krizz-moft", but you will be able to discover which object the man is telling you it is by that process of deduction. And perhaps, even without your knowledge, "krizz-moft" is another language for "red".
So we may not be able to discuss with any certainty exactly what it implies to say that there is a metaphysical force or entity of some sort, but we can deduce using scientific observation and logic flowing reliably from those observations that some sort of metaphysical entity or force is very likely to exist. It is not a final philosophical proclimation of god, it is a very good scientific observation.
Phwew. I'm out of breath. Anyhow, if no one understands what I'm trying to get at then I think I'll just drop it because my dad always told me there's no use "kicking a dead horse".
And lastly, I do not see how macro-evolution is falsifiable from a realistic point of view. It is only falsifiable if our knowledge continues to exist and document it (or the abscence of it) for a good million years if not far more. However, from that same process of elimination, I find that it is the most highly likely explanation and so I go with it. I really don't see a large difference between this aspect of evolution theory and creation theory. And that's why I think both of them go together.
I must honestly say that I see no flaw in this reasoning. But please, by all means if you see flaws, I'd appreciate if you could show me what holes you see in it. I'd hate to go on following an erroneous line of reasoning. And I'm not preoofreading this...
I am going to give you a tip. A tip which comes out of several threads which have long since died. Long posts are skipped by a lot of people reading the boards. Even if they are interested in the subject. Even if they think that you might be saying something worth reading. Most people ignore or resent long posts.
The last thread on which this was pointed out at length by many posters was, coincidentally, on one which someone attempted to prove all their points by appeal to "logic".
Even as an ex-(would be)-logician who decided to go off and do something useful with her life (read poetry in dead languages) I can see some beautifully unchallenged assumptions in the way you are adjudging your 3 options for where life comes from. But I do not have time to go through and pick them out for you. You are welcome to critically proofread your post and find them on your own. If you are ruthless in applying 'logic' they'll stand out.
'frin
Now that this thread has fallen into the usual dreary rut, I'm kicking it up to Purgatory.
I can't tell you how much I don't miss reading this stuff!
RuthW
hellhost, former Purgatory Host
quote:
A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus:1. What am I trying to say?
2. What words will express it?
3. What image or idiom will make it clearer?
4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?
And he will probably ask himself two more:1. Could I put it more shortly?
2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?
But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you -- even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent -- and they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself.George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, 1946
It is a long document, and perhaps needs to be read in its entirety to put the current debate in context. To save time, I have selected some short excerpts which are particularly relevant to this debate. These outline the educational framework into which the creation/evolution debate is being taught:
quote:
There is no such thing as a neutral classroom. Schools are not value-free…competing world views - relativism, secularism, atheistic humanism, post-modernism, new age pantheism and scientism, as well as the traditional world religions…It does matter what children learn and all Christians should be concerned about the learning of all children.Ours, ironically, is as Michael Novak argues, an age of arrogant gullibility wherein lies the supreme contradiction and absurdity of those who are 'absolutely committed to relativism'!
…The context of true education, as its Latin root suggests, is that it leads young people to find a way forward in life for themselves equipped with both the ability to properly question theories and assumptions and the support of wise counsel and direction. The transmission of academic fact has never been more than the means to this end, even though academic qualification has become the economic currency of man's development in a materialistic world. Education is not about indoctrination nor is it about driving young minds into attitudes which have not been thought through. (my emphasis added). Man's true education is surely more to do with coming to a sense of identity, purpose, worth, direction and future. The search for Truth is more than simply the search for what the examiner marks as being correct.
Science
It is important that the Science teacher constantly distinguishes science from scientism.
Science is a humble and persistent search for appropriate models to explain reality. It proceeds by repeated careful observation, measurement and experiment. It deals with hypothesis and theory and is prepared to modify and occasionally abandon established theories and models.
The process of science can involve creativity and imagination and gives opportunity to experience a sense of wonder and awe.
The teacher should not shy away from talking about awe and wonder, creation and design in a natural way at appropriate times. The teacher should be equipped to demonstrate that the philosophy of scientism, with the belief in the view that questions which are not susceptible to scientific enquiry cannot be answered or are not worth asking, is a faith position.
There are those who argue that Science and Christianity can be harmoniously reconciled and that no significant tension remains. We cannot subscribe to this view. It seems to us that attempts to reconcile evolutionary theory with the Biblical account of creation strain and distort scripture and that they introduce a symbolic reading of Genesis which cannot logically deny the symbolic reading of the Virgin Birth, physical Resurrection of Christ or the Second Coming.
Clearly schools are required to teach evolutionary theory. We agree that they should teach evolution as a theory and faith position. Again it is important to distinguish between evolutionary theory and the faith position of evolutionism. Clearly also schools should teach the creation theory as literally depicted in Genesis. This too is a faith position of which young people should be aware.
We believe that schools, in the interest of a true education, should help young people see the issues and the evidence base for the Creation/Evolution debate. We do not believe that Evolution is an unimportant side issue. Nor is the tension between science and religion.
Young people must also be helped to understand that science cannot deal directly with the past. Scientists cannot go back in time to directly examine the animals and rocks of long ago. They cannot observe the past or test it and young people should be made aware that whilst the majority of the scientific community hold to evolutionary theory some atheistic scientists cast significant doubt upon it. Both Creation and Evolution provide ways of explaining the past that are beyond direct scientific examination and verification. Ultimately, both Creation and Evolution, are faith positions.
We believe that the science teacher should provide opportunities to demonstrate this.
Anyway, I guess this is just a different dynamic that I'm not used to yet so please forgive this final long post and bear with me one last time.
Thanks for the piece of that article posted there Neil. It's an interesting view, but one that I don't agree with.
As I see, there is a very important difference between young-earth creationism as laid out in the Bible, and the simple theory of a metaphysical force causing our existence in some way. The difference is that the Biblical view actually appears contradictory to observed scientific data. Why should we teach a theory that does not appear to be a scientifically viable theory in the first place? If data contradicts a theory, then that should be labeled a bad theory. Biblical, young-earth creationism is a bad theory.
On the other hand, the basic theory of "a metaphysical force" initiating physical existence does what a good theory should do by providing a logical explanation for observed data, as I explained in my (newly dubbed) "way-too-long post".
Now, I completely understand all of your arguments about falisifiablility. My claim is not to show you how to falsifly the question of "Is there a God". We cannot do that with science. But we can, using science, try to answer or falsify two different, yet similar and equally interesting questions:
1- "Is a metaphysical force needed to explain the very existence of life, time and the physical?"
2- "Is the theory of that initiating force in keeping with, and does it help to explain, our understanding of our scientific observations?"
Both of those are falsifiable ideas, and are important falisifying points in the bigger question of the theory; the question that you all seem to think should be "Is there a God?"
But "Is there a God?" is not what it should need to come down to because the question really has nothing to do with giving the force a personality, which is what is implied by the word "god". What it should come down to is: "Is the theory of an existing metaphysical force a scientifically viable option?"
If we honestly examine the data, the answer is easily "Yes, it is a scientifically viable option because it accounts for our observations in science, such as what we call the big bang, as well as the fact that it seems physically impossible for something to come from nothing, and the fact that nothing physical seems, from our observations anyway (which is the base of science), to be eternal."
If a scientist is able to show that life can emerge independent of a metaphysical force, or that something can come from nothing, then he would have taken a powerful step in falsifying both of those questions.
If it is shown by science how the universe could have come into existence out of nothing and with no force (an idea contradicting current science), then suddenly the idea that there must have been a force (metaphysical force) to cause the reaction (the big bang) which brought matter into existence, would no longer be a very viable scientific theory. Factual observation has the ability to find a way to prove or to model, in some physical or mathematical manner, that our realms could have existed eternally, or that they could have come into existence without the initial event being caused by any metaphysical force.
In the deepest sense, the theory of an existing metaphysical force (which might be more scientific or scientifically measurable than anyone seems to concieve) is falsifiable to the same extent that evolution is. If anyone disagrees, it would help me greatly if you could explain how evolution could be falsified any more easily than the explanation I have given of so-called "Creation". And by the way, I have to admit that the word "creation" is not the best word to describe the scientific version of the theory because it also implies intelligence, when whether or not the metaphysical force is intelligent is beside the point.
Our schools teach that nothing existed before the big bang. These words were in my old textbook, although they now mention that perhaps certain matter is eternal. Both of these theories contradict our direct observations of science and yet we teach them. Why not teach this "metaphysical force" theory, a theory which better answers our observations, as well?
If you're still awake, thanks, and sorry, I fear this post is too long again. I don't think I can help it when I talk about this issue.
If you just scrolled down to the bottom and are reading only this paragraph, I understand. Feel free to ignore me but I think I have some good points that are only ever understood when elaborated.
Anyway, I don't have anything more to say so don't worry. I'll only respond if there are direct questions about my ideas.
quote:
From the quote Neil Robbie gave:
Scientists cannot go back in time to directly examine the animals and rocks of long ago.
Alan
I'll stick with my three fold God, Chance and Necessity options, mainly because I understand them a bit better than what appears to be a similar set of options nemo gave. To say, as I do, that God is the best answer (do I take it nemo that you go for the more impersonal Necessity?) does not, as I see it, necessarily mean that the other options are not also complementary models of the same reality.
Let me explain. I believe a personal God created and upholds all that is. I also believe that science gives an accurate description of the universe - a description that is entirely consistant with the view that the universe came about by chance. This then constrains my view of God, ie: his normal action (I don't discount the possibility of miracles, though that is a seperate discussion) is within physical laws that look like chance even if they are directed, and that the direction he gives is therefore concealed from scientific scrutiny.
It is therefore a faith position that I hold, it is equally true that someone who says that things appear to be chance because they are chance holds a different faith position. Both of these faith positions would predict the same outcome from any scientific observation, there is therefore no scientific method of distinguishing between them. So, whereas I would be delighted to see my faith position taught in schools in the context of a comparative assessment of different faith positions, I would object to it being taught in the context of a science lesson.
Alan
Alan
quote:
But, this is precisely what geologists and palaeontologists do; they directly examine ancient rocks and the ancient creatures recorded therein. There is fundamentally no difference between reconstructing the past through examination of rocks and fossils as there is in reconstructing the past through archaelogy, forensic science or analysis of historical documents.[/QB]
That is a very good point, and one that I can't see any reason to argue with. However, it is one thing to find a group of fossilized Neanderthal skeletons in one area, to study them, and to conclude the probable time period that the lived, and what they probably ate, or even to deduce what "family" or "species" they belong to. It is quite another thing to make the statement that this species then evolved into humans. That is where the evolutionist makes a faith judgement. And although it IS a faith judgement, it is based off of a lot of good, supportive knowledge, so therefore it is a very good and respectble judgement. That is what popular science purports and have to I agree.
The simple answer is that we don't know. And this is sort of the main point I have been attempting to convey. There are also many other things we don't know, but which we treat as more scientifically valid views.
I can't speak for the U.K. of course, but I know that in much if not all of the USA, there are two things that are generally discussed in science class and that appear in science books: Option 1, the theory that everything came from nothing with no force to cause it, and Option 2, the theory that perhaps there are strange particles of matter that exist eternally, and that expand and contract becoming and destroying universes for eternity. These are taught because somewhere along the line, it was decided that they are scientifically viable options.
Well, IF we are going to teach that (which we are already), then why not also teach the other viable options.
Option 3 - the "metaphysical force" theory Option 4 - that everything "just is" (books could state that this theory reaches into the speculative philosophical field and thus will not be discussed further in science class)
Option 5 - a simple statement that "there are other theories, but we do not discuss them in this class because their predictions are contrary to our observations in science and thus they are not viable".
If people don't like this idea and won't allow these theories to be included, then I'd say we also should not teach the "something from nothing" theory OR the "eternal matter" theory. In fact, if this is the case it would be best to simply not allow any theories regarding anything "before" the big bang, or what might have caused the big bang, to be discussed in the classroom at all.
quote:
I'll stick with my three fold God, Chance and Necessity options, mainly because I understand them a bit better than what appears to be a similar set of options nemo gave.
One key difference between our options is that in order to make it more scientific, I combine "God" and "Necessity" into one option which is "metaphysical force". To debate beween whether that force was caused by a "god", meaning an intelligent force, or caused by "necessity", meaning on non-intelligent force, makes into into more of a faith-choice than an observational choice. In other words, we can observe that a force must exist by seeing its effects, and that seems scientific to me, but it is more difficult to judge between whether that force is intelligent or whether it is simply something that happens.
A quick analogy:
Imagine a ball that is sitting still and imagine that someone pushes it with their index finger, causing it to roll forward. The "intelligent" or "non-intelligent" force options you presented are like asking, "When the ball rolled, was it because something wanted to cause it to move, or because something just happened to cause it to move?"
It's non-scientific because we can't judge, just by looking at the moving ball, whether or not the force that caused it to move did so on purpose.
But we can make the viable scientific deduction that, "Since the ball moved, some force probably caused it to do so." We can accurately deduce the presence of a force, but we do not need to debate whether the force is intelligent or not. If we transfer this line of reasoning, then we can say:
"since everything appears to have come into existence at some point, some force probably caused it to do so." That much is pretty logical and scientific, right?
The next step is to ask, "Is that force a physical or metaphysical one?" This leaves us with three final options alltogether: either Nothing caused everything we experience to come into being, or else Physical Force caused everything to come into being, or else a Non-physical Force caused everything to come into being (also known as "Meta-physical").
Thus, those two of your options dealing with god of necessity should be combined into the option of a non-physical force, or a "Metaphysical Force". It should be left up to individuals to then make a judgement whether that force would be personal or impersonal.
Another difference in our options is that "Chance" is a more all-encompassing option. You are left asking "What are the chances that this happened by chance?" which, as you have correctly portrayed, is a big judgement call. We can scientifize it by instead seperately addressing two theories that, indeed, may have happened by chance but which do not require us to decide if "chance" was involved or not. These are more scientifically structured observational options such as the following two:
1- "Everything came into being with no causal force."
2- "Everything has existed eternally."
This seems more scientific to me because when people normally say "This hapened by chance", what they are usually inferring is that "This happened for no reason". But we cannot assume such a thing, because what if everything came into being with no causal force, but did come into being for a reason? That is to say that perhaps there is "a method to the madness", and thus we are not implying that "this all happened for no reason". The same reasoning can be applied to option 2 that I just gave. Matter might exist eternally, and it actually might be "for a reason".
I am trying to get away from questions that make such leaps of faith as to try to say what the reasons behind existence are, and to merely make statments and theories about HOW existence came to be.
And yes, by the way, I do go for the more impersonal Necessity, as you call it.
1) I would put the universe is eternal and has no beginning into the same box as the universe is only a few thousand years old; both run counter to scientific understanding. Even Hawkins no-boundary hypothesis presented in a Brief History of Time still has the universe having a finite age even if he tries to reach a point where the question "when did the universe begin?" is as meaninful as asking "where does a sphere start?". M-theory speculates that the universe we observe is a brane in a multiverse, but that just shifts the question to "when did the multiverse start?". That is why I didn't include it as an option. nemo, from what you've said I think you also dismiss this option.
2) When I referred to chance I was using it in a more technical sense, sorry for any confusion. As a scientific term "chance" does not imply no cause; a radioactive nucleus decays by chance, but that decay is still caused by nuclear forces and the outcome of a large number of decays is predictable. That is one reason why I have no problem combining the God & Chance options as not being mutually exclusive.
3) Necessity may turn out to be something essential in the laws of physics. Although, of course, if the laws of physics make this universe necessary the question "why is that so?" is still left there to be answered, and I still think God is the answer to that question. I kept Necessity seperate from God because the two are not necessarily a simple division between personal & impersonal metaphysical entities. Although I take your point that they could be.
I really should be getting some work done, perhaps I'll get a bit more time over the weekend.
Alan
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I believe a personal God created and upholds all that is. I also believe that science gives an accurate description of the universe - a description that is entirely consistant with the view that the universe came about by chance. This then constrains my view of God, ie: his normal action...is within physical laws that look like chance even if they are directed, and that the direction he gives is therefore concealed from scientific scrutiny.
My goodness this is a beautiful statement. This is it exactly. Thanks!
"I am trying to get away from questions that make such leaps of faith as to try to say what the reasons behind existence are, and to merely make statments and theories about HOW existence came to be."
I realized that that is phrased in a confusing manner.
What I mean is that since we are trying to deal with scientific observation rather than philosophical speculation, we should NOT examine questions like:
-Did everything come into being by chance (with no cause and for no reason)?
-Did everything come into being because a force "wanted" it to (due to a cause, and also for a reason)?
-Did everything come into being because a force happened to cause it to do so (due to a cause, but for no reason)?
All of the above questions deal more with the question of "Why" we came to be rather than "how" we came to be. On the other hand, we can ask the more "how"-oriented questions such as, "Could everything have come into being:
-Without a force having caused it to do so?
-or Because of a force that caused it to do so?
By refining the second question even a little bit more, we can ask, if everything came into being because of a force, was it:
-A physical force?
-A non-physical force?
In this question, if we assume a physical force did it, then we can deduce that since the physical comes into existence by way of the physical, thus the physical must be eternal. Since this does not fit with our observable data of the physical world, in order to be good scientists we must also allow for an option here that DOES fit our data, rather than trying to make our data fit our assumption. Well, since our data suggests the presence of a force, and since it does not seem to be ultimately a physical one, it is very likely non-physical...or metaphysical.
quote:
(all of which, by the way, have been shown could either be an extinct single breed of ape or a human with a birth defect
Not so. Is Australopithecus aferensis an ape or a human?
Most creationist writers have done this dividing into "ape" and "human" for fossil hominid skulls. None of them can agree which are which because they have features of both.
Carbon 14 and clams - well known creationist canard. It is well established that you cannot use C14 dating for sea creatures because they take up some of their carbon from dissolved calcium carbonate from rocks. This, of course, is already "old" carbon having been fixed from atmospheric CO2 millions of years before.
In other words - it's a fiddle.
quote:
No more long posts (after this one, no really, I do promise).
quote:You might also enjoy getting your head around the Introduction thread in the Archives.
Originally posted by nemo:
By the way Alan, thanks for discussing this with me, it is much appreciated and your input is great! -helping me to refine my logic here.
Why should we support it?
1. Teaching only ‘evolution’ gives children the impression that only the dominant view is true.
2. The dominant view may or may not be true.
3. Christians are concerned with truth.
4. By opening minds to other possibilities (Vitalism, IDism and YECism) will help the scientific community find the truth by educating a generation of scientists who are not committed to naturalism, but open to theism.
5. Children/Youths are smart enough to work out for themselves what they believe is true, when presented with all the arguments.
Neil
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
Going back to teaching biology in school, I believe Christians should support the Emmanuel College efforts in the biology classroom, regardless of which view of origins or the development of life we hold.Why should we support it?
1. Teaching only ‘evolution’ gives children the impression that only the dominant view is true.
2. The dominant view may or may not be true.
3. Christians are concerned with truth.
4. By opening minds to other possibilities (Vitalism, IDism and YECism) will help the scientific community find the truth by educating a generation of scientists who are not committed to naturalism, but open to theism.
5. Children/Youths are smart enough to work out for themselves what they believe is true, when presented with all the arguments.Neil
1. Only one point of view can be true if they options contradict each other.
2. The scientific evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming. The scientific evidence in favour of YEC is bog all.
3. Accepted
4. Evolution is not contradictory to Theism
5. Only if the evidence they are given is accurate. If they are given any significant(scientific) evidence in favour of YEC they are not being given an accurate picture.
This is a science lesson. Children should be taught to understand science and scientific methods, how to question the science they are presented to etc. To teach them bad science is unacceptable. To teach stuff that isn't science at all should be reserved for other lessons.
But this is also the very reason that creation should be included in the teaching. By creation, I mean the concept of a metaphysical force having set the physical word into existence. This does not conflict with old earth science nor does it conflict with evolution. It can merely be presented as one of the prevailing and scientifically valid theories regarding the cause of the apparent big bang. This would do a service to the scientific method, showing students that they must be sure to analyze all rationally possible answers, even if they seem far-fetched. In fact, by not teaching this as a valid theory, aren't we doing the scientific method a great disservice?
How can the theory that the big bang was caused by a chance collision of strangely infinite particles be falsified?
How can the theory that something can come from nothing be falsified?
quote:
Originally posted by nemo:
How can evolution be falsified to any extent that the existence of a metaphysical force cannot?
?
Look back in the thread for how evolution is falsifiable - there's no point repeating it.
For your metaphysical force to be falsifiable you've got to make scientifically testable predictions from it - what are you suggesting?
quote:
How can the theory that the big bang was caused by a chance collision of strangely infinite particles be falsified?
I'm not a physist so I'll have to cop out of this one.
quote:
How can the theory that something can come from nothing be falsified?
[UBB tidied up]
[ 09 April 2002: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Would a host care to sort out my UBB? Thanks.
Big Bang theories make predictions and are based on observations. They are therefore scientific. The same with evolution. Introducing a meta-physical concept (either God or nothing-but-chance) doesn't introduce anything to be tested because both would result in the same scientific observations. (I'm excluding here the YEC type of thing which makes predictions that a patently false).
Alan
quote:
Alan said:
Science has it's own particular way of thinking and questioning and introducing meta-physics within that context would be wrong (that also goes for the Dawkins type meta-physics that confuses methodological and philosophical materialism).
The root of the problem is that methodological and philosophical materialism can not be separated. Methodological materialism or naturalism, begins with the premise that the material world can be fully understood by a system of natural laws and mechanisms (that there is no need to invoke the supernatural). Minds methodologically trained by science to think naturalistically tend toward philosophical naturalism or materialism.
Steven D. Schafersman’s paper
Naturalism Is An Essential Part Of Science And Critical Inquiry states this clearly.
quote:.
Naturalism is, ironically, a controversial philosophy. Our modern civilization depends totally for its existence and future survival on the methods and fruits of science, naturalism is the philosophy that science created and that science now follows with such success, yet the great majority of humans (at least 90% of the U.S. population) believe in the antithesis of naturalism--supernaturalism.
As I have argued before on this and other threads, it is not ‘evolution‘ which is the issue, it is the premise of methodological materialism which is the problem. Methodological materialism breeds philosophical atheists and deists.
The issue for Christians, therefore, is to teach science from the premise of methodological supernaturalism.
Kirsten Birkett states this premise in her book 'Unnatural Enemies: an introduction to science and Christianity':
quote:
The physical world was created by God and everything in it continues to be sustained by his will. Thus, any true theory of how that physical world works cannot conflict with a Chritsian view of God, for the Bible says that the physical world is entirely moved and controlled by God, working in and through what we regard as 'natural processes'.Important implications flow from this. Firstly, finding a 'natutral' cause for an event is no reason to dismiss God as the fundamental cause. In fact, if nothing else, our survey of the biblical teaching should make clear that the word 'natural' is rather inapproprate, especially if it is contrasted to 'supernatural'. In the end, there is no difference between the two, in the Bible's view. All causes within the world are ultimately caused by God. So even the most complete scientific theory, with every causal chain thoroughly described, is no reason to conclude that God is not there. From the Bible's viewpoint, is is merely an elaborate description of the wise order that God has created, and now sustains, in the world. The two are not competing explanations; they are both true explanations.
Neil
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
The issue for Christians, therefore, is to teach science from the premise of methodological supernaturalism.
What on earth would constitute such an approach?
Is it scientific - sciences are de facto naturalistic as far as I can see, just hypothesising that such a think may be imagined as a label isn't the same as saying there is any substance to the label.
I fail to see how a "supernatural" approach could possibly be testable, in which case, again, Neil IT IS NOT SCIENCE. Can you construe anything which is testable?
P.S. Clearly, ID etc. are not.
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
As I have argued before on this and other threads, it is not ‘evolution‘ which is the issue, it is the premise of methodological
materialism which is the problem. Methodological materialism breeds
philosophical atheists and deists.
Erm, isn't that last part sort-of contradictory? Furthermore, the suggestion that any materialist approach enforces a philosophical approach parallel to it isn't by any means proven - you clearly find such a view attractive, as do others, that doesn't constitute proof. Indeed, it is quite possible to conjecture the converse, that some who practice methodological materialism come from a base of philosophical materialism, etc. Indeed, one might argue that the hostility to methodological materialism of some is directed by the dominance of their philosophical supernaturalism.
My experience of scientific researchers (and writing as one), is that rather too many don't have their philosophical eyes open too widely to start with - only their viewpoint, only their approach is valid. Alternatives, even valid scientific methodologies, are not something they've got their eyes open too - indeed, the reviews of a number of my works reflect this only too well. I don't think this is because they're scientists, I just think it's the sort of person they are.
Conversely, a number of clergy, readers etc. don't seem to be able to cope with alternative approaches to theology, etc. Their view is right, blah, blah, blah - you get the idea. As for the clergy's understanding of science, unless trained scientists their general outlook has been grossly uninformed, inaccurate and hostile.
All the above from my personal experience - it may or may not be typical!
A limited ability to adjust one's viewpoint to other approaches even within the most general interpretation isn't a good thing. I think though, that it is sadly widespread. At Parochial Church Council meetings, I've become increasingly intolerant of the hoary old chestnut "in the real world", which tends to mean "from my experience" (subtext: which is clearly more informed/valuable than yours).
Good science, good theology, stem from being able to take as wide a look at the methodologies, tools, techniques and understandings that one can acquire, and to use them as they are best suited.
A major goal for Christians in those countries in which religion is taught in schools, and everywhere where religious education occurs generally, is to ensure that it is taught well, and that it is clearly seen as one tool for understanding the world, which is not at war with Arts, Sciences or anything else, but is enriched by them. Furthermore, the engagement with one's "neighbours" is something which should focus, enhance and vitalise those other domains. However, just as Science cannot invalidate or validate Arts and Humanities (hardly a controversial statement), it similarly cannot validate or invalidate Faith.
Trying to suggest, which I'm not sure whether you are or not, that there is some fundamental tension between these areas, or that the work of one area seriously validates or invalidates the philosophical approach of another, is to get the entire map of human study wrong - there are separate, discrete continents of approach which have their own particular form and function in supporting human life.
The challenge is rather between what is the "material" that lies between the continents. I'd suggest that, whatever some oddball scientists, psychologists or others suggest, it is not the material of their continent. It's not even, I'd suggest, religion or faith, but all of that now leads somewhere else.
I'd think that the major fault of some is to make the error of the "joining material" their continent, which is I think one way of casting your doubts without distorting them. However, supplanting science or psychology with religion is just to repeat their errors and their falsehoods.
If we can find a positive manner to articulate that connecting form, whatever we may ascribe it, and place Faith alongside the rest, I think we actually will end up to an approach which is more coherent with, and even synergetic with, other approaches we use to understand our lives, and which will be much more effective in terms of persuasiveness and sustainability than making the same errors as (say) Dawkins.
quote:
Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
The issue for Christians, therefore, is to teach science from the premise of methodological supernaturalism.
Alan
quote:
gbuchanan said:
sciences are de facto naturalistic
Says who? Materialists? Naturalism?
I've already pointed out that, theistically speaking, there is no difference between ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’.
Therefore, sciences are de facto supernaturalistic. Science is the no more than the observation of the work of God in creation.
As for testable...neither view is testable. We can not prove or disprove God by observing creation. So, why should the term ‘naturalism’, methodological or otherwise, be applied to the work of science?
Why should methodological materialism, the exclusion of a creator/sustainer/life force or wahtever, govern historical science?
Neil
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
