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!

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.

quote:

---

From the quote Neil Robbie gave:
Scientists cannot go back in time to directly examine the animals and rocks of long ago.

---

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.

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]

---

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".

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.

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.

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.

---

"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?

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.

quote:

---

No more long posts (after this one, no really, I do promise).

---

quote:

---

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.

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.

How can the theory that the big bang was caused by a chance collision of strangely infinite particles 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]

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).

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.

---

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?

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil Robbie:
The issue for Christians, therefore, is to teach science from the premise of methodological supernaturalism.

---

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?