DescentBB

And, its about time.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17132925/

Bee

I went to a private, religious highscool and was taught evolution. I never thought any schools actually taught the creation story as a fact. Guess I was wrong.

Wow..common sense prevails..and just when I thought it was impossible.

ccb056 wrote:I went to a private, religious highscool and was taught evolution. I never thought any schools actually taught the creation story as a fact. Guess I was wrong.

Yes, it's actually very common in Christian private schools, especially in the Midwest US. Primarily this is because well-meaning but misinformed Christians (parents and educators both) have been told that evolutionary science denies the existence of God or lessens God's sovereignty.

Many people would be surprised at how strong the "Young-Earth Creationism" stuff is among some Christian groups. From the private schools I went to as an elementary student, to the home-schooled community I was part of in high school, I was given the "evolution is anti-Christian" message over and over and over. It was in the textbooks, it was taught in church sermons and Sunday-school classes, and I even attended seminars promoting it. As a kid, I completely bought into the idea (after all, it was presented as, "If you believe in God, you can't believe evolution"). In high school I sensed there was something wrong with that idea, and I eventually learned why in college.

I still have family members who buy into it, some of whom are even well-educated. I have yet to really confront it in my family, simply because I'd rather preserve relationships than debate science and theology, but I know it will come up at some point (maybe over discussion about this very topic, since I have family in Kansas).

Anyway, my point is that despite this decision, the "anti-evolution creationist" view is still very strong, so this debate will go on and on. When people believe that evolutionary science is a threat to their faith, they will (understandably!) oppose it, and fight as if their Christian heritage is under attack. There's a long way to go before this will end.

In my Orbital Mechanics(Aerospace Engineering) class here at college someone asked the question, how did all these motions start? in respects to elliptical orbits. Prof answered by saying wed have to consult the big bang theorists. I kid you not when I say that about 75% of the class got all upset and started saying we should ask god the creator of all things, blah blah blah about it. Some people are so closed minded they won't accept other things. like evolution, creation theories, etc.

me, I'm an evolution and Big Bang Proponent and view somethings such as religion explanations for the unexplainable, which works, until an answer becomes available, like the Earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, there are no gates in the sky that hold back water, etc. every time a question like that is answered it takes a good deal of turn around in any organized religion to make some change, whether thats good or bad, I don't know enough to say

eventually the argument will be accepted and a new \"scientific\" discovery will begin a new fight. I hae organized religion more and more because of this, even though I consider myself a christian.

Hmm, in the private (Christian) schools I went to, they did teach Creation. What did you expect? I don't have a problem with this at all, as private schools should be able to teach what they want in this regard. I don't think students should be *forced* to believe it if they don't want to; I'm not sure if this ever actually happens, however.

Foil, care to share some links to the sort of thing that changed your mind? I don't think Evolution and Christianity are incompatible, but I haven't seen a good explanation as to why (aside from Drakona's excellent old post on non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1.)

I dont know about you, but in my bible the creation story is labeled just that, a \"creation story\". I never thought people actually took it literally.

Firewheel wrote:I don't think Evolution and Christianity are incompatible....

There not, but Evolution and Creationism are.

Bee

Of course, while everyone's lambasting the schools for ever \"dropping the evolution standards\"... No one looks at the details.

The media also casts the standards that were repealed in an extremely incriminating light. However, don't take it from these third-party sources--I'm a Kansan myself, though homeschooled. Therefore, I can give you a little more insight from a less biased point of view than can the media.

The board on Tuesday removed language suggesting that key evolutionary concepts — such as a common origin for all life on Earth and change in species creating new ones — were controversial and being challenged by new research. Also approved was a new definition of science, specifically limiting it to the search for natural explanations of what is observed in the universe.

This is probably the most accurate phrase in the whole article, but it's still off. The actual fact is that the new \"standards\" simply removed questions on evolution from some types of tests and put a sticker on biology textbooks saying, in essence, \"While most people believe in evolution, some people do not agree with this view, and are called Creationists.\" Nothing more.

As for the latter part of that quote--that is always what science has been. Someone sees something happen and performs tests to determine why, then make a prediction based on those tests. That is all science can really do.

Nothing else in the article, I should note, really applies to the core issue at hand. Pretty sad \"reporting\", if you ask me.

I was about to type something referring to Kansas education system, but I guess a Floridian has no right to talk about someones education system.

2+2=6n FTW!!!

Stryker wrote:The actual fact is that the new "standards" simply removed questions on evolution from some types of tests and put a sticker on biology textbooks saying, in essence, "While most people believe in evolution, some people do not agree with this view, and are called Creationists." Nothing more.

I've read the sticker, as have many other people (if you haven't, here it is).

Stryker, can you honestly read that and not see the implication being made? The subtext of the sticker encourages the reader to treat evolution with the same amount of skepticism as bleeding-edge science like String Theory or any other Unified Theory of Everything, despite the massive amount of evidence in evolution's camp. Furthermore, the former standards mandated the addressing of "alternative theories of origin", the chief one being Intelligent Design, which is not science. Imagine the outrage that would ensue if a Scientology proponent petitioned the local school board to address the possibility of the world's existence as Xenu's jail for thetans, and by law it must be treated with equal footing.

On a different note, I've attended Catholic schools my entire life (currently a sophomore at a Jesuit college) and never once have I met someone or believes -- or have I been taught -- that the world was created as per Genesis. Never.

Even if evolution is disproven, no evidence to back intellingent design or creationism up (except the bible, but blarg!), so it doesn't belong in the first place.

Pardon me, but yes, I have read the sticker. It encourages a student to look something up. The STUDENT can then determine what they believe to be correct, as opposed to being force-fed. In our age of \"tolerance\", isn't this the ideal?

I am still by no means convinced of evolution, for one simple reason: no one has -EVER- given me an undisputable fact that proves evolution. The only thing I have EVER received from an evolutionist is ridicule for not believing their theory. Never has any evolutionist actually attempted to hold a reasonable, logic-based debate with me on the topic. Granted, I'm not your average Creationist, either--I have my own theories about how things happened.

In the end, however, the result is the same: due to the fact that no one has ever presented me with hard, undeniable evidence of the evolutionary theory, (outside of a \"go read this book, n00b\"--which I cannot, as I quite simply do not have the time or the money now) I cannot believe in it.

Please note that I am not being facetious here; I am not one of those who will refuse to listen to a logical argument. However, I also think for myself--I am not afraid of calling BS when I see it.

And, particularly in this matter, I'm seeing a lot of BS.

Dakatsu--if Evolution is disproven, Creationism is the only remaining logical theory. Your logic fails.

Stryker wrote:Pardon me, but yes, I have read the sticker. It encourages a student to look something up. The STUDENT can then determine what they believe to be correct, as opposed to being force-fed. In our age of "tolerance", isn't this the ideal?

I am still by no means convinced of evolution, for one simple reason: no one has -EVER- given me an undisputable fact that proves evolution. The only thing I have EVER received from an evolutionist is ridicule for not believing their theory. Never has any evolutionist actually attempted to hold a reasonable, logic-based debate with me on the topic. Granted, I'm not your average Creationist, either--I have my own theories about how things happened.

In the end, however, the result is the same: due to the fact that no one has ever presented me with hard, undeniable evidence of the evolutionary theory, (outside of a "go read this book, n00b"--which I cannot, as I quite simply do not have the time or the money now) I cannot believe in it.

Please note that I am not being facetious here; I am not one of those who will refuse to listen to a logical argument. However, I also think for myself--I am not afraid of calling BS when I see it.

And, particularly in this matter, I'm seeing a lot of BS.

Dakatsu--if Evolution is disproven, Creationism is the only remaining logical theory. Your logic fails.

I have never in my 37 years been given absolute proof that God or anything in the bible ever happened. Some people believe it. I don't. We are following the written words of people long gone, written in a forgotten language, translated many times over a long period and people think it hasn't been screwed up.

I'm more scientific. I beleive the evolution theory. Yes, there are some things that science hasn't proven but it doens't mean they won't given time.

Bet51987 wrote:

Firewheel wrote:I don't think Evolution and Christianity are incompatible....

There not, but Evolution and Creationism are.

Depends on what you mean by "Creationism", as it can simply mean "The natural universe was intentionally created" in it's most basic form. But of course, "Creationism" usually refers to the "Creationist movement" with it's implications about a young Earth, etc.

Stryker wrote:...[the sticker] encourages a student to look something up. The STUDENT can then determine what they believe to be correct, as opposed to being force-fed. In our age of "tolerance", isn't this the ideal?

Stryker, as I think you know, I was home-schooled as well, not far from you in Oklahoma. I understand your perspective, as it appears to be very similar to my own when I was approximately where you are in your education.

I recall repeating nearly that same exact argument above during a home-school debate class my Junior year. The argument, "present all the theories, and let the students decide" seems to make sense from a general perspective, and it made sense to me as a student.

However, when I got to college and grad school, and became a teacher for a year, my perspective changed. Why? Allow me to make an anology:

My degree and background is in Mathematics. I got the chance to teach various Math classes as a grad student, and even taught public high school for a year. As a Math educator, what should the public school standards be for Mathematics? Should I "present all the theories, and let the students decide"?

Now, before anyone jumps in and says, "But Math isn't being debated, there's only one view!", you might be surprised to find out that there are actually a number of well-organized "alternative math" groups who argue some of the widely-held principles and results of Mathematics. One good example is the idea of "Constructivism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructi ... thematics)), which denies many results of classical and modern mathematics; and there are many others, including groups who believe Pi is a rational number, or those who don't accept the concept of infinite sets.

Back to the analogy, if I'm teaching Calculus, what should the standard be? I must present all these theories to the students and say "you decide"? Heck, no! As a Mathematician, I have an obligation to teach the most well-tested and verified mathematical theory that I know. I can talk about the other theories, but to require me to put it on the same level as classical Mathematics would be ridiculous.

The same goes for educators in Science. Since evolutionary science has far more well-tested and validated evidence backing it, it should not be put on the same level as other theories.

[Disclaimer: I am a Christian, and I do believe this universe was created by God. My understanding of the correct interpretation of Genesis and my understanding of current science is what leads me to not accept some Creationist views.]

Presenting all theories is a good idea. But even using this as a guide, creationism/ID can't be taught - because it is not a theory. In the words of someone famous, regarding creationism et al, \"Right? It's not even wrong.\" It's not a theory, it's not even wrong - it's just stupid.

For those people who refute evolution by saying \"it's just a theory\" - well, check the facts: it's a theory with a staggering amount of evidence to support it, and there is cetgorically ZERO evidence against it. The fact that there is some disagreement as to the exact progress of evolution (slow change vs. \"punctuated equilibrium\" for example) does NOT cast any shadows of doubt upon the FACT of evolution.

If you are one of the idiots who claim \"no supportign fossil evidence\" then you are simply wrong, and there is a fantastic amount of evidence even when it comes to the Giraffe - (the creationists pet creature - they always ask for \"short neck giraffe fossils\" anbd there are a bundle of them too. These people though, are never satuisfied, because every time another transitional fossil is discovered, they insist there are now MORE gaps in the record... See, you have a very short neck giraffe (fossil) and a normal giraffe (modern) and they say \"There's a gap\". Now introduce a medium neck giraffe fossil, and they insist there's now TWO gaps... it's Luney Tunes.

I congratulate the Kansas school board for finally facing the truth.

Quick side-note: Let's not turn this into another endless \"Creationism-bashing\" or \"Evolution-bashing\" thread.

Let's keep it around the topic of school standards.

lol, Moby, \"There's a gap!\" \"Now there're two gaps!\" It's a sad laughter, really, because these people exist.

The majority of biology and medicine is based on evolution, an example of this is bacteria and viruses. ALl evolution states is organisms slightly change over time.

Wrong, ccb. That is the theory of microevolution.

The theory of macroevolution is what creationists take umbrage with, and, as yet, I have STILL not seen anyone on this board present actual evidence for it, aside from saying \"you're an idiot\", which rather inclines me to the other side of belief than the reverse. Calling creationists idiots doesn't further your beliefs. PMing them and giving demonstrable proof does.

Stryker, if it's \"uncontrovertible proof\" you're looking for, you won't find it, on either side. Even rigorous Mathematical proofs are based on a fundamental set of assumptions, which can be questioned.

What good science does is look at the weight of evidence. It can and should always be questioned and tested, but you can't use the fact that \"it's subject to question / you can't prove it beyond doubt!\" to invalidate it.

(Trying to steer this back on topic) - That's what the Kansas board did; they moved the standards back in line with the science which currently has the overwhelming weight of evidence behind it.

Stryker wrote:Wrong, ccb. That is the theory of microevolution.

The theory of macroevolution is what creationists take umbrage with, and, as yet, I have STILL not seen anyone on this board present actual evidence for it

There's absolutely no distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Evolution is evolution, and no false dichotomy you introduce will change that fact.

Bet51987 wrote:

Firewheel wrote:I don't think Evolution and Christianity are incompatible....

There not, but Evolution and Creationism are.

Bee

Why? Could the universe have been created via evolution?

Lol, of course not, evolution is a biological phenomena and has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

Dakatsu--if Evolution is disproven, Creationism is the only remaining logical theory. Your logic fails.

Creationism/ID is not a theory or have any scientific fact behind it, so it shouldn't be put into a science book. Now, they should alert you that it is a theory, but it should be in there. I honestly hope that evolution isn't true and that something cooler happened, but the proof are there and it is the most probable.

Although possibly, since I am agnostic as I don't see any proof or disproof of a non-abrahamic god, it is possible that god created everything and made stuff evolve in her image of life.

I don't think Evolution and Christianity are incompatible....
------
There not, but Evolution and Creationism are.

Bee
------
Why? Could the universe have been created via evolution?

Matters how much of a belief in the bible you take. If you believe everything down for fact, then Evolution is non-existant. If you are taking a more liberal interpretation, it is possible god created single-celled organisms and they evolved. In essence, Christianity and Evolution are compatible depending on your belief in Genesis. Evolution and Creationism are compatible, as in god created single celled organisms and she made it so they could evolve into humans.

\"Evolution and Creation are not compatible because evolution says there is no God\" is a commonly-heard statement (among many Christian groups, at least), but it's false.

As the Kansas board realized, evolutionary science makes no claims about the existence of God. If it did, it wouldn't be good science.

(I think they are completely compatible. Althrough there's no way to prove it, I personally see the long progress/changing of life as a beautiful thing, set in motion and guided by God.)

DCrazy wrote:

Stryker wrote:Wrong, ccb. That is the theory of microevolution.

The theory of macroevolution is what creationists take umbrage with, and, as yet, I have STILL not seen anyone on this board present actual evidence for it

There's absolutely no distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Evolution is evolution, and no false dichotomy you introduce will change that fact.

Exactly how I feel. The problem with macroevolution is that its changes happen over millions of years compared to microevolution whose changes can appear quickly. Creationists know this fact and use it as a hammer.

Foil wrote:(Trying to steer this back on topic) - That's what the Kansas board did; they moved the standards back in line with the science which currently has the overwhelming weight of evidence behind it.

Evidence is what science has and creationism has not. I hope the remaining states, if any, follow suit.

Bettina

So up to this point....

• 1. Evolution (or the big bang. Take your pick) cannot be fully \"proven\" (or disproved) without more info than human beings currently has.
  2. Creation (like what is described in the Bible) also cannot be fully \"proven\" (or disproved) without more info than human beings currently has.

Therefore, it is necessary that each individual (doesn't matter if he/she likes it or not) must decide within themselves what they wish to believe or cling to.

I searched to find out, and I found out. I know which is true. Can I tell you what I know and how I know it? Yes. But it won't do any of you any good unless you're willing to have some faith. If you've already made up your mind and will not consider changing your viewpoint, don't bother asking. Arguing will not gain anything.

Some of you have faith in the teachings of some form of \"Supreme Being\", others have faith in the teachings of science. If you haven't decided yet, then you need to make a choice. Why? It is the nature of human beings to require choosing. If you choose one side, you cannot choose the other. If think you can choose neither (and sit in the middle), at least one side will toss you out which means you'd have to choose one or the other anyway.

Science exists to help us to learn, so let's keep learning. Do the believers in a \"Creation\" disregard Science? No, no way, foolishness. Rather, belief in a \"Supreme Being\" implies that we have much to learn and you cannot learn without looking at all the possibilities.

..... getting back on topic .....
I think it is good to learn of both. If you believe in a God, then it's good to learn about how that God works will all the laws of nature and science (since you probably also believe that He created or uses those laws). If you don't believe in a God, then... duh... it's good to learn how to work with the laws of nature and science.

I believe in God, and I know he exists and cares for us. I want to know how the science and nature all works because He obviously either works with it or set it up that way, and there is sooooo much for us to learn.

TechPro wrote:"proven" (or disproved)

What? No, it does not follow that because something cannot be proven that it cannot be disproved. Disproving things is the whole point of science. Unlike religious mumbo jumbo, science is falsifiable. So you could disprove evolution or creation at any time by finding something that disagrees with their predictions. And, by the way, in case you were wondering, this has happened with respect to creationism "like what is described in the Bible" approximately one million times already.

For example, if the universe was created 10,000 years ago, then we will see nothing farther than 10,000 light years away. But, oh wait, we do.

TechPro wrote:like what is described in the Bible

Which version by the way, the Genesis 1 (Jahwist) account, or the Genesis 2 (Elohist) account?

TechPro wrote:Do the believers in a "Creation" disregard Science? No

Yes you do, and all the time. Every time you presume some metaphysical assumption like "God created the universe 10,000 years ago" and then go on to try to reconcile everything you observe around that assumption, you are disregarding science and the scientific method. This is exactly what got the Christian church into trouble a few centuries ago when they took the biblical account of geocentricism as an undeniable presumption about the universe too.

TechPro wrote:I believe in God, and I know he exists and cares for us

It depends on what you mean by "know". Since you placed emphasis on the word, it implies that you regard it as truth beyond doubt, and truth beyond doubt implies acceptance as fact. Faith is a better word to use because it is a belief without proof.

Faith belongs in church and your inner self, not taught in schools as an alternative to science. BTW.. Looking at the world today, I have no faith in a God that loves us.

Bettina

TechPro wrote:Some of you have faith in the teachings of some form of "Supreme Being", others have faith in the teachings of science.

And others have faith in both! (Of course "faith" meaning different things in each case.) I believe God created and still works in the universe, and I believe current science is doing a good job of modeling how that creation progressed over time.

[Way-off topic]

Bet51987 wrote:...
BTW.. Looking at the world today, I have no faith in a God that loves us.

I know it's been rehashed at least a couple of times, but if anyone is interested, I'd like to start a new thread about the question, "If God is loving, why is there so much pain in His creation?" I have what may be a uncommon view on this (I don't see it as a contradiction), and I'm curious to see what others think.
[/Way-off topic]

[Edit:]

Jeff250 wrote:...
For example, if the universe was created 10,000 years ago, then we will see nothing farther than 10,000 light years away. But, oh wait, we do.
...
Every time you presume some metaphysical assumption like "God created the universe 10,000 years ago"...

Jeff250, I think you're making the incorrect assumption that *all* Christians/Creationists believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1&2 (and thus a <10,000-year-old universe). It's a common stereotype, but it's not true. Not all those who believe in a Divine creation are "Young-Earth"/"Young-Universe" Creationists.

Note: In TechPro's statement above, he didn't say one way or the other, so watch those assumptions!

In fact, many (including me!) who believe in divine creation also believe the current scientific models about the apparent age of the universe.
[/Edit]

I believe that God adheres to the Laws of nature and science, for if He did not, God would cease to be God. So how do I reconcile that with apparent \"miracles\" and such? Simple. Do we know everything there is to know about the Universe? No, we don't. Do we know (and fully understand) all of the Laws of Science and Nature? No. Therefore, it's unwise for us to assume that we know something cannot be done. Does that mean I take it on blind faith? No, in fact I encourage that we investigate and learn how things are done and what there is out there to learn and find out.

Foil wrote:Jeff250, I think you're making the incorrect assumption that *all* Christians/Creationists believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1&2 (and thus a <10,000-year-old universe). It's a common stereotype, but it's not true. Not all those who believe in a Divine creation are "Young-Earth"/"Young-Universe" Creationists.

Note: In TechPro's statement above, he didn't say one way or the other, so watch those assumptions!

No no, I'm well aware of the body of Christians who are old-earth. But I've also heard enough young-earth rhetoric to identify a young-earth-ite when I hear one.

Foil wrote:I know it's been rehashed at least a couple of times, but if anyone is interested, I'd like to start a new thread about the question, "If God is loving, why is there so much pain in His creation?"

I'd be interested.

Jeff250 wrote:

Foil wrote:Jeff250, I think you're making the incorrect assumption that *all* Christians/Creationists believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1&2 (and thus a <10,000-year-old universe). It's a common stereotype, but it's not true. Not all those who believe in a Divine creation are "Young-Earth"/"Young-Universe" Creationists.

Note: In TechPro's statement above, he didn't say one way or the other, so watch those assumptions!

No no, I'm well aware of the body of Christians who are old-earth. But I've also heard enough young-earth rhetoric to identify a young-earth-ite when I hear one.

Hm, interesting. I think there's far more misunderstanding in this case than most people think.

To that end, I propose a test to see if your "Young-Earth-ite identification skills" prove out. Your comments were directed at TechPro, so... TechPro, it's clear you believe in creation by God, what about the age of the universe? Under 10K years (per a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis), or older?

OK, I'll bite.

The Universe is vast. Far more vast than any of us here can comprehend (possibly without end, or seemingly without end) and it is older than we can measure, if not eternal.

This Galaxy in which we live is just one of many, many galaxies. This Galaxy is probably not as old as the Universe, but it is probably billions of years old. This solar system is just one of billions of solar systems within this Galaxy.

We don't really know just how old this Earth is. By the study of known records, at the very least probably older than 30,000 years. Could be 5 billion years old.

You see, we only have records for the time in which Man has recorded. How long the Earth has been here before that, we just do not know.

Hmm, well that's the lukewarm sort of response I was hoping I wouldn't get , but still, I assert that somebody who is even suggesting that a young-earth is possible and that all life was created abruptly isn't somebody who is taking science seriously (again, I'd recommend taking a look at your metaphysical bias).

Okay, okay, I admit... I knew TechPro's view before I asked.

Seriously, although I don't agree with \"Young-Earth\" creationists, I can't fault their choice of where they place their faith, given their belief system.

Honestly, as a Christian myself, I don't think poorly of anyone for choosing their faith-based beliefs ahead of science when the two seem to disagree. Christians must put their faith first; it comes with the territory. I just think it's misguided interpretation that leads the \"Young-Earth\" folk to feel Genesis contradicts current science.

TechPro wrote:....You see, we only have records for the time in which Man has recorded. How long the Earth has been here before that, we just do not know.

TechPro, we do know. But no evidence I can show you will be convincing enough because of your beliefs. There is no way around that and its things like this that hurts education.

Bettina

Foil wrote:Honestly, as a Christian myself, I don't think poorly of anyone for choosing their faith-based beliefs ahead of science when the two seem to disagree. Christians must put their faith first; it comes with the territory.

This is why I fear for the future of our country as an international leader.

Foil wrote:And others have faith in both! (Of course "faith" meaning different things in each case.) I believe God created and still works in the universe, and I believe current science is doing a good job of modeling how that creation progressed over time.

++