Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

msjones

Theory of Evolution -- do you avoid teaching it?

Recommended Posts

This is the best you can do?

 

The Bible also has verses that describe the formation of mountains and valleys (which is incedentally, most likely where all of that flood water went) and the water cycle. I am going off of memory. The regulations for cleanliness were unique and showed understanding that people did not have. The Bible named Cyrus as the conqueror of Babylon well before his birth.

 

Circumcision was done on the 8th day of life. It was rather recent that scientists found good reason for it being done on the 8th day. There is more of a particular clotting factor on that day than any other. What a coincidence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, again, you are making the point that the Bible reflects "human perception" and not the actual state of the physical universe. It's a big concession.

 

 

nope-- I'm saying that the Bible was written for men, not as a How To book for God or science. its statements are consistent w/ scientific and mathematical testimonials. That they are not all-encompassing testimonials does not make it a book of errors or undermine its divine authorship.

 

I fully understand this work as "literature". Or in the sense of mythos. I further understand many (most?) religious people understand the Bible in that context. As "mythos" rather than "logos".

 

that's not what I'm talking about: your posts have revealed you don't understand the literary devices, plot or storyline very well, regardless how you categorize the work.

But I'm aware there are "literalists" who believe every word is historical and scientific Truth.

 

yeah--we have those in the scientific community too... ;)

 

 

As opposed to whom?

 

There are a number of Biblical scholars --both religious and secular-- that have a better grasp on the work than you [or I]. I would suggest people seek those opinions before taking your word [or even mine] on anything biblical.

Who said I had a "monopoly"?

I was merely pointing out thatyou obviously don't. Therefore your expectations of divine authorship are pretty useless in this discussion.

 

But I do have to reason for myself. So if a book reflects only human knowledge (including errors and/or omissions) and offers nothing else about the physical universe that wasn't known or mis-understood, how do I make the leap to "divine authorship"? It doesn't stand to reason.

 

1. As was mentioned earlier, it doesn't reflect "only" human knowledge.

2.what you count as errors tend to be literary devices or assumptions on your part, which lead to you labeling them "misunderstandings".

3. You demand a complete explanation for a work whose purpose is NOT to explain every little thing for you, so you whine about omissions. If science can't explain something yet, I don't write them off. I'm betting you don't either.

4.As was mentioned earlier, there are quite a few things the Bible does mention that wasn't known.

 

i do agree that making the leap to realizing divine authorship is one that requires faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person should be allowed to disagree with an argument (as in, someone arguing for or against something) without having to deal with the

 

YOU'RE WRONG!! BECAUSE I SAID SO!

 

crap that seems to permeate these threads every time evolution, religion, or... bikinis comes up.

 

right! just like the

 

SEE! HERE's THE CHART SHOWING THE DESCENT OF MAN! PROOF! I'M RIGHT! HA!

 

that did crack me up.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A commandment not to have sex during menstruation tells us something about the physical universe?

 

Staying way from dead bodies? Knowing feces is something unclean?

 

Really??? This is the best you can do?

 

Bill

 

really?

that's as far as you're willing to read?

that's the best research YOU can do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bible also has verses that describe the formation of mountains and valleys (which is incedentally, most likely where all of that flood water went) and the water cycle.

 

OK, Carmen, I don't want to sound "inflammatory" so as gently as possible I would suggest that any sighted person on earth who had been in the proximity of mountains and valleys could describe them. To say they were "created" adds nothing the obvious point that they "exist."

 

Now were there a serious explanation of how mountains and valleys came to exist, I'd be impressed. And I'd love to read about it if there is an explanation I missed.

 

The regulations for cleanliness were unique and showed understanding that people did not have.

 

The dietary and hygiene laws were "cultural", and tell us nothing about the physical universe.

 

Circumcision was done on the 8th day of life. It was rather recent that scientists found good reason for it being done on the 8th day. There is more of a particular clotting factor on that day than any other. What a coincidence!

 

Citation please. This sounds far-fetched. And, even if true, could be explained by the power of human "observation". We are not a stupid species. We look and learn.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I do have to reason for myself. So if a book reflects only human knowledge (including errors and/or omissions) and offers nothing else about the physical universe that wasn't known or mis-understood, how do I make the leap to "divine authorship"? It doesn't stand to reason.
"...reflects only human knowledge..." :confused:

 

That seems to be a very selective statement. It seems that some humans do not have knowledge of the following things found in the Bible:

- God created the heaven and the earth.

- God created all land and sea animals and all vegetation.

- God created man.

- God created woman from the rib in the side of man.

- God covered the earth with a worldwide flood as a judgment against man.

- Noah was commanded to build an arc to save the kinds of animals on the earth.

 

All of the above are outside of human knowledge, since humans are not, even in the wildest stretch of any human's imagination, capable of any of the above feats. That does not mean that God cannot and did not perform them or that they are, in any way, inaccurate.

 

To me, this is the gist of your argument against the Authority of the Bible:

1) Statements in the bible that you agree with are part of YOUR knowledge, therefore any God should know them.

2) Statements in the bible which you do NOT agree with must be mistaken.

 

As such, you have placed yourself above the Creator of the universe in passing judgment on what He has written and done. I personally believe the Bible is written to confound those who take such a position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circumcision was done on the 8th day of life. It was rather recent that scientists found good reason for it being done on the 8th day. There is more of a particular clotting factor on that day than any other. What a coincidence!

 

Actually, it was likelier trial and error.

 

Barb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dietary and hygiene laws were "cultural", and tell us nothing about the physical universe.

 

Citation please. This sounds far-fetched. And, even if true, could be explained by the power of human "observation". We are not a stupid species. We look and learn.

 

explanation about circumcision here: [including sources at the end]

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2204

so yeah....we'll just circumcise babies on various days and make a chart on which day is best, and write that day down in The Book.....

 

Bill, many of these things were NOT practiced universally, and just because something is cultural or observed does not make it scientifically accurate.

 

I agree that the Bible is NOT a science text, but what I have seen is that it is consistent w/ mathematic, archaeologic, and scientific [even some evolutionary] principles. And as those principles continue to be explored, i think we'll find even more consistency w/ the Bible and science.

 

We may not be a "stupid species" but we've done [and believed] a LOT of stupid things in the name of science and medicine. there are obviously a lot of scientifically correct Biblical examples that you are omitting. Who was saying what about the credibility of omitting stuff?? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the Bible is NOT a science text, but what I have seen is that it is consistent w/ mathematic, archaeologic, and scientific [even some evolutionary] principles.

 

It's consistent if you are willing to substitute "circles" for "spheres" and "reflectors" for "lights".

 

But, as I said there is nothing "we" didn't already know about the physical universe in this work.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's consistent if you are willing to substitute "circles" for "spheres" and "reflectors" for "lights".

 

But, as I said there is nothing "we" didn't already know about the physical universe in this work.

 

Bill

 

it's consistent in describing what is seen. You keep forgetting that little part. ;)

But yeah, if you have to omit the obvious and focus on that omission to discredit the scientific consistencies of the Bible, omit away.

 

citations?

Please share all the statements about the physical universe that are in the Bible that you think were universally documented at that time. There are already a couple links shared to help you in your search, and I'm sure a quick google search can aid you in that. Especially in documenting what the people then did and did not know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's consistent in describing what is seen. You keep forgetting that little part. ;)

 

Yes, it's describing what's being seen (and mis-interpreted) from a human perspective. You are making my point.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it's describing what's being seen (and mis-interpreted) from a human perspective. You are making my point.

 

Bill

 

are you saying that when we look at the moon we are NOT seeing light?

 

and when you look at the moon in the sky [or earth from afar] you are NOT seeing a circular shape? what shape would YOU call it, if you are unable to see it accurately from 3 dimensions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are you saying that when we look at the moon we are NOT seeing light?

 

We are seeing "light" reflected by the moon. We are not seeing "a light", we are seeing a "reflector". I would expect ancient people would mistake one for the other, and this would be evident in their creation stories.

 

and when you look at the moon in the sky [or earth from afar] you are NOT seeing a circular shape? what shape would YOU call it, if you are unable to see it accurately from 3 dimensions?

 

Again you are making my point. A human being (without the benefit of scientific knowledge) might easily mistake a distant sphere for a circle. That is the difference from a text reflecting a pre-modern human understanding of the universe and the truth.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again you are making my point. A human being (without the benefit of scientific knowledge) might easily mistake a distant sphere for a circle. That is the difference from a text reflecting a pre-modern human understanding of the universe and the truth.
I agree that this line of reasoning is getting us no where. Bible scholars interpet the creation account to be written from the standpoint of someone on the earth for our benefit, but Bill's point can just as easily be the reasoning. It is remarkable, however, that the order in which fossils appear is the same as that in the creation account.

 

I am still waiting for citations of ancient peoples living in the time of Moses and Isaiah that had knowledge of some of the things that God's people had knowledge of (water cycle, the formation of mountains and valleys, cleanliness, circumcision on the 8th day, earth hanging upon nothing, etc.) without the benefit of learning this from God's people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we've seen them trotted out in this thread, let's collect some of the atheistic beliefs which have been relabeled as science and use to indoctrinate children and adults alike through taxpayer-sponsored enterprises such as public school and public television:

 

Atheistic assumptions being put forth as science:

 

- Uniformitarianism: This anti-Biblical assumption that the present is the key to the past is important to Atheists in multiple ways. First, operational science is impotent to make *any* predictions about the past if uniformitarianism is not assumed. This is true because any belief in catastrophism means that the past cannot be predicted by observing the present. Second, catastrophism is the historical view taught in the Bible. What's interesting is that atheists seem to apply the principle of uniformitarianism when discussing evolutionism or Noah's flood, but prefer the idea of catastrophism when discussing the origin of the universe.

 

- Methodological naturalism: This religious assumption states, in essence, that no miracles occur. As a result, scientists are left grasping at straws when faced with clearly-miraculous events which have occurred sometime in the past. These include the creation of the universe, the origin of life and the many different life forms which exist today. ANY explanation found in the Bible to explain these events is deemed incorrect at face value.

 

- Theories are higher than laws: Several people in this thread have exalted the "scientific" belief that theories are higher than laws in scientific thinking. It should be clear to all observers that this approach to science is merely a means of putting non-scientific religious beliefs which do not agree with the observed nature of the universe above the immutable laws which have been observed throughout history. The most important theories where this approach must be applied are a) The Theory of Evolution, b) The Big-Bang Theory and c) The Standard Model of matter. Since these religious beliefs cannot be proven and do not agree with the physical laws of nature, it is imperative that they be placed above those laws in order to indoctrinate all hearers in their teaching. No competing theories are allowed to exist in their presence, stifling scientific dissension and thinking.

 

The three theories mentioned above are, themselves, based on religious assumptions:

 

- The Theory of Evolution is based on the assumption that complex coded instructions to build irreducibly complex and incredibly complicated structures can arise through a random process of mutation followed by natural selection. This theory also rides on the existence of life which, itself, is completely unexplainable to modern science except that some scientists are attempting to *create* artificial life in the laboratory to promote their theories.

 

- The Big Bang Theory is based on the assumption that without provocation, nothing exploded and the universe was formed. Of course this theory violates the Law of Cause and Effect and many other laws of physics. That is why beholders of this theory describe the moments at the beginning of the supposed Big Bang as "a mystery". This theory is also based on the assumption that there is NO center to the universe, which makes it quite difficult for Big Bang cosmologists to explain how we can see galaxies 75 Billion light-years away from Earth when the universe is supposed to be only 18 Billion light-years old.

 

- The Standard Model of matter is nothing but a capitulation from traditional science when the existing principles of matter appeared to break down. This model is full of self-contradiction and mathematical-only principles that have no basis in physical space. New models of matter that agree with the large body of observed data and that do not contradict the traditional laws of matter are now available. It will be interesting to see if these new theories will be afforded the opportunity to reestablish science to its roots of discovering knowledge.

 

In any case, please keep these things in mind whenever you hear someone proclaiming that something is "not scientific". In many cases, what they mean is that it does not conform to the atheistic religious assumptions that have been indoctrinated into modern scientific thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are seeing "light" reflected by the moon. We are not seeing "a light", we are seeing a "reflector". I would expect ancient people would mistake one for the other, and this would be evident in their creation stories.

 

no --we are seeing a specific light in the sky. That light may very well BE a reflected light, but it is a light, nonetheless. You are continuing to omit that we are speaking of a very specific light --not just "light" that is visible during the day as well.

 

Again you are making my point. A human being (without the benefit of scientific knowledge) might easily mistake a distant sphere for a circle. That is the difference from a text reflecting a pre-modern human understanding of the universe and the truth.

 

are you saying it is untrue that a sphere from a distance looks like a circle?? I'm not saying that they believed it WAS a flat circle --the text merely describes what they see AS a circle. How is that description of the shape they see untrue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since we've seen them trotted out in this thread, let's collect some of the atheistic beliefs which have been relabeled as science and use to indoctrinate children and adults alike through taxpayer-sponsored enterprises such as public school and public television:

 

Atheistic assumptions being put forth as science:

 

- Uniformitarianism: This anti-Biblical assumption that the present is the key to the past is important to Atheists in multiple ways. First, operational science is impotent to make *any* predictions about the past if uniformitarianism is not assumed. This is true because any belief in catastrophism means that the past cannot be predicted by observing the present. Second, catastrophism is the historical view taught in the Bible. What's interesting is that atheists seem to apply the principle of uniformitarianism when discussing evolutionism or Noah's flood, but prefer the idea of catastrophism when discussing the origin of the universe.

 

- Methodological naturalism: This religious assumption states, in essence, that no miracles occur. As a result, scientists are left grasping at straws when faced with clearly-miraculous events which have occurred sometime in the past. These include the creation of the universe, the origin of life and the many different life forms which exist today. ANY explanation found in the Bible to explain these events is deemed incorrect at face value.

 

- Theories are higher than laws: Several people in this thread have exalted the "scientific" belief that theories are higher than laws in scientific thinking. It should be clear to all observers that this approach to science is merely a means of putting non-scientific religious beliefs which do not agree with the observed nature of the universe above the immutable laws which have been observed throughout history. The most important theories where this approach must be applied are a) The Theory of Evolution, b) The Big-Bang Theory and c) The Standard Model of matter. Since these religious beliefs cannot be proven and do not agree with the physical laws of nature, it is imperative that they be placed above those laws in order to indoctrinate all hearers in their teaching. No competing theories are allowed to exist in their presence, stifling scientific dissension and thinking.

 

The three theories mentioned above are, themselves, based on religious assumptions:

 

- The Theory of Evolution is based on the assumption that complex coded instructions to build irreducibly complex and incredibly complicated structures can arise through a random process of mutation followed by natural selection. This theory also rides on the existence of life which, itself, is completely unexplainable to modern science except that some scientists are attempting to *create* artificial life in the laboratory to promote their theories.

 

- The Big Bang Theory is based on the assumption that without provocation, nothing exploded and the universe was formed. Of course this theory violates the Law of Cause and Effect and many other laws of physics. That is why beholders of this theory describe the moments at the beginning of the supposed Big Bang as "a mystery". This theory is also based on the assumption that there is NO center to the universe, which makes it quite difficult for Big Bang cosmologists to explain how we can see galaxies 75 Billion light-years away from Earth when the universe is supposed to be only 18 Billion light-years old.

 

- The Standard Model of matter is nothing but a capitulation from traditional science when the existing principles of matter appeared to break down. This model is full of self-contradiction and mathematical-only principles that have no basis in physical space. New models of matter that agree with the large body of observed data and that do not contradict the traditional laws of matter are now available. It will be interesting to see if these new theories will be afforded the opportunity to reestablish science to its roots of discovering knowledge.

 

In any case, please keep these things in mind whenever you hear someone proclaiming that something is "not scientific". In many cases, what they mean is that it does not conform to the atheistic religious assumptions that have been indoctrinated into modern scientific thinking.

 

 

You're making the assumption here that people who believe in evolution are all atheists. That's simply not true. I belong to a liberal branch of Judiasm. My rabbi is a firm believer in evolution.

 

I also take offense at the claim that I've been somehow duped by the government via public school and public television. I would never assert that you've been duped by the church or the Bible. I would simply say that we have differing religious beliefs and that I disagree with yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're making the assumption here that people who believe in evolution are all atheists. That's simply not true. I belong to a liberal branch of Judiasm. My rabbi is a firm believer in evolution.

 

I also take offense at the claim that I've been somehow duped by the government via public school and public television. I would never assert that you've been duped by the church or the Bible. I would simply say that we have differing religious beliefs and that I disagree with yours.

 

 

i gotta agree --- I think the big bang and evolution are viable scientific models that are compatible w/ Scripture. not perfect, but eventually fully compatible. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that this line of reasoning is getting us no where. Bible scholars interpet the creation account to be written from the standpoint of someone on the earth for our benefit, but Bill's point can just as easily be the reasoning. It is remarkable, however, that the order in which fossils appear is the same as that in the creation account.

 

I am still waiting for citations of ancient peoples living in the time of Moses and Isaiah that had knowledge of some of the things that God's people had knowledge of (water cycle, the formation of mountains and valleys, cleanliness, circumcision on the 8th day, earth hanging upon nothing, etc.) without the benefit of learning this from God's people.

 

I think the extended discussion is getting us somewhere --sometimes it's just a painfully slooow process. ;)

 

but i'd like to see more citations about what people did know back then too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're making the assumption here that people who believe in evolution are all atheists.
No, I am not. That point has been made clear to me earlier in this thread.
That's simply not true. I belong to a liberal branch of Judiasm. My rabbi is a firm believer in evolution.
I understand that some people here are not atheists. That does not change the fact that the atheistic assumptions that I have listed are being masqueraded as science today.
I also take offense at the claim that I've been somehow duped by the government via public school and public television.
I'm sorry, but I have not claimed that anyone was "duped". What I said was that we have all been indoctrinated. That simply means that we were taught by the government only the concepts that I listed in my post without ever being taught the contradictory theories. What we choose to believe is a separate matter altogether.
I would never assert that you've been duped by the church or the Bible.
Nor would I assert that about you or others here.
I would simply say that we have differing religious beliefs and that I disagree with yours.
Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no --we are seeing a specific light in the sky. That light may very well BE a reflected light, but it is a light, nonetheless. You are continuing to omit that we are speaking of a very specific light --not just "light" that is visible during the day as well.

 

So what you are saying is ancient people saw a big light and a lesser light, and tiny lights, and they acknowledged the existence of these lights (that they could plainly see) in their creation stories. So what?

 

are you saying it is untrue that a sphere from a distance looks like a circle?? I'm not saying that they believed it WAS a flat circle --the text merely describes what they see AS a circle. How is that description of the shape they see untrue?

 

No. A human being could easily make the mistake of believing a sphere at great distance is a "circle". How many times do I need to repeat it? A mistake in human perception does not make something that is false into something that is true. This creation story appears to reflect mistaken human perceptions rather than the truth state of the universe.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then the assumptions you've listed are not atheistic ones...they are beliefs held by many people of diverse faiths. Obviously, I believe in evolution and don't agree that, what I see as, these facts are masquerading as science. I'm not sure I see the point of responding tit for tat at this point. I don't think we're going to agree after 40+ pages. I'm happy to agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then the assumptions you've listed are not atheistic ones...they are beliefs held by many people of diverse faiths.
Regardless of what various people think about the theories, the underlying assumptions of uniformitarianism and naturalism directly contradict the Bible. As such, they are neither Christian nor Jewish assumptions. The practice of elevating theories above laws is probably just bad science, so I'll grant that is not necessarily an atheistic belief. Still, that one is necessary in order to grant credence to theories that defy the laws of nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what you are saying is ancient people saw a big light and a lesser light, and tiny lights, and they acknowledged the existence of these lights (that they could plainly see) in their creation stories. So what?

 

 

LOL! we were all "so what?" until you started claiming they were WRONG in their descriptions of "a light" vs "just light." :001_smile:

 

No. A human being could easily make the mistake of believing a sphere at great distance is a "circle". How many times do I need to repeat it? A mistake in human perception does not make something that is false into something that is true. This creation story appears to reflect mistaken human perceptions rather than the truth state of the universe.

 

no --you are assuming they believed it WAS a circle. The text is pretty clear that it is just describing what they SEE, not what they think it IS. you are confusing a description of a thing w/ knowledge of what it is.

 

It is not a mistake that a sphere at a distance looks like a circle.

It IS a mistake that you continue to assume they believe it was "just" a circle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless of what various people think about the theories, the underlying assumptions of uniformitarianism and naturalism directly contradict the Bible. As such, they are neither Christian nor Jewish assumptions. The practice of elevating theories above laws is probably just bad science, so I'll grant that is not necessarily an atheistic belief. Still, that one is necessary in order to grant credence to theories that defy the laws of nature.

 

Can we acknowledge here that people of different faiths interpret the Bible differently? I don't believe that the theory of evolution is based on any assumptions. I believe it's based on sound science, so in my mind there aren't any assumptions for the Bible to clash with. Does what I see as the science of evolution clash with the Old Testament? No, not one bit. You're obviously welcome to your own interpretation of the Bible. However, the interpretations I subscribe to do not clash with the Old Testament.

 

Obviously we have different definitions of what constitutes science and therefore what constitutes "bad science." I think "bad science" would be an oxymoron, wouldn't it? We can disagree on what constitutes "bad science," but I think we would probably agree that "bad science" isn't, in fact, science at all, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can we acknowledge here that people of different faiths interpret the Bible differently? I don't believe that the theory of evolution is based on any assumptions. I believe it's based on sound science, so in my mind there aren't any assumptions for the Bible to clash with. Does what I see as the science of evolution clash with the Old Testament? No, not one bit. You're obviously welcome to your own interpretation of the Bible. However, the interpretations I subscribe to do not clash with the Old Testament.

 

Obviously we have different definitions of what constitutes science and therefore what constitutes "bad science." I think "bad science" would be an oxymoron, wouldn't it? We can disagree on what constitutes "bad science," but I think we would probably agree that "bad science" isn't, in fact, science at all, no?

 

I kinda agree here.

I do think the Theory of Evolution is based on quite a few assumptions [since we obviously did not witness the evolution], but i don't see it as conflicting w/ the Creation account at all. [except for their dinos-before-birds thing: flying critters first].

ditto w/ the Big Bang.

 

God is a God of order, and the science community has done an admirable job of trying to present its findings in an orderly manner. flaws and all ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The appendix has several uses which have been discovered recently, some of which are related to the immune system. It is not vestigial. Again, saying you can remove it and live is different from claiming there is no use.

 

I have first hand experience with this. I never got sick before I had my appendix removed. Now I suffer with infections of different types, all the time. No matter how many probiotics I take, nothing keeps me from getting them, all the time. Worst of all, I usually don't even know I have one, until something really bad happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
- Theories are higher than laws: Several people in this thread have exalted the "scientific" belief that theories are higher than laws in scientific thinking. It should be clear to all observers that this approach to science is merely a means of putting non-scientific religious beliefs which do not agree with the observed nature of the universe above the immutable laws which have been observed throughout history.

 

I agree with almost nothing that you have said in your post, nevertheless, I would like to point out something interesting about this particular point; something that may support your argument.

 

Although contrary to what I have learned about science, I noticed that several others were arguing in favor of the definitions that you have stated above. I decided to investigate. Interestingly, in my dozens of textbooks, the definitions of 'theory, fact, law, and principle' are rarely even addressed until around the turn of this century (2000 AD). It's like they are common words and everyone knows what they mean. Then, these definitions begin to receive emphasis in the late 90s. Not only that, their meanings seem to change. Upon further investigation, I found that Craig Dilworth (philosopher of science) wrote a paper in 1990, published in 1994 (i think), which attempted to redefined these words. The reviews that I read on his paper were not flattering. However, the new definitions, though for the most part similar to the old, provided, what I will call a semantic-type emphasis to the word 'theory'. This emphasis seems suspiciously useful for falsely bolstering the argument that evolution is somehow 'more reliable' because it is a theory. From what I can tell, these new definitions have lately been creeping into the science textbooks. The funny thing is, they don't really change the science; they just change the language. For instance, according to this new idea, a 'fact' is no longer necessarily true. A 'fact' is, by the new definition, what we used to call, an 'observation'.

 

Hewitt: Conceptual Physics 2001 (BTW: A scientist whom I respect):

 

"But in Science, a fact is generally a close agreement by competent observers of a series of observations of the same phenomenon. For example, where it was once a fact that the universe is unchanging and permanent, today it is a fact that the universe is expanding and evolving. A scientific hypothesis, on the other hand, is an educated guess that is only persumed to be factual until tested by experiments. When a hypothesis has been tested over and over again and has not been contradicted, it may become known as a law or principle."

 

Why would science make this change? Because now, it sounds like a theory is the ultimate in truth; more true than even a fact. "It's a fact!" no longer means that it is true. Now we can say that science aspires to theories, not facts. Thus, the Theory of Evolution becomes almost sacred.

 

This entire reasoning is fallacious, of course, and the idea that somehow theories are more reliable than Laws of science or more true than facts is exactly the kind misunderstanding that I believe the new language is designed to achieve. Nothing has changed but the language. (Keep in mind, this language is in dispute and has not been agreed upon by the entire scientific community.) Theories are built on (what some are calling) facts. Facts, by this new definition are subject to change with new observations. When the facts change, the theory must change as well. The theory is still "Just a Theory" and subject to change like any other theory.

 

BTW: you won't find any reputable science source that denies that a all theories and laws are subject to change.

 

So, while I believe firmly that the theory of evolution is a pretty accurate description of how man arose, I am, at the same time, concerned that scientists are, perhaps, allowing the debate to shape their language and, perhaps, this is being done in a somewhat disingenuous fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, while I believe firmly that the theory of evolution is a pretty accurate description of how man arose, I am, at the same time, concerned that scientists are, perhaps, allowing the debate to shape their language and, perhaps, this is being done in a somewhat disingenuous fashion.

 

okie doke, here's my first :iagree: with you... ;)

 

 

well stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a side note:

 

I was reading Adler the other day, and he was talking about how, if one misreads the title of a book, it can skew one's entire understanding of said book.

 

The example he used was "On the Origin of Species" by Darwin. (On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)

 

He pointed out that the majority of people, when asked what Darwin's book was titled, would reply "The Origin of the Species", which has a different connotation.

 

He also mentioned how "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" starts "in the middle" and doesn't mention the Roman Republic at all. Why? Because it is discussing the decline of the empire, and the decline didn't start during the Roman Republic.

 

I just thought that was interesting.

 

 

a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading Adler the other day, and he was talking about how, if one misreads the title of a book, it can skew one's entire understanding of said book.

 

The example he used was "On the Origin of Species" by Darwin. (On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)

 

He pointed out that the majority of people, when asked what Darwin's book was titled, would reply "The Origin of the Species", which has a different connotation.

 

He also mentioned how "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" starts "in the middle" and doesn't mention the Roman Republic at all. Why? Because it is discussing the decline of the empire, and the decline didn't start during the Roman Republic.

 

That is an important point to make. I'm sure I've said origin of THE species since that's what i hear over and over and over.....

and the decline-- well, most of us just wanna skip to the end of the book anyway, right? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible (also, hi, I'm new and just spent the last hour and a half reading the whole awesome thread!) that when God was dictating his words, he spoke to his current audience? If man at the time was scientifically immature, it seems to make sense that He wouldn't get too technical; introducing unknown concepts and ideas (viruses, etc) would do humanity at the time a disservice. So that when He said "circle" and "a light," he didn't mean "literally a circle" but "you fools have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll dumb it down for you."

 

It's like how the xenologers on Lusitania were forbidden to teach the pequeninos modern, human ways of doing stuff, as it would screw up their development. Yes, the Ender series has all the answers.

 

Or, if you prefer, if your 2 year-old points at the sky and asks, "What color is that?" you'd reply, "It's blue," and not get into how color and light work.

 

(To answer the initial question, DH is a YEC, I'm an OEC, and we'll be teaching the kids all of the creation myths and theories, though putting emphasis on creationism and microevolution, as that's what we both believe are responsible for life as we know it, while explaining that we don't have all the answers, and could well be wrong.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have always taught both sides, even though we are Creationists. I wanted my children to be prepared for what they would be taught in college science. We teach evolution as a theory, but choose to believe ID instead. After digging into this with my older two (and getting ready to with a third) it has only strengthened our beliefs.

 

 

This is us, too.:001_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(answers interpolated below)

 

P.S. (added afterward) I simply must train myself to notice the original dates on these old threads which are resurrected ! Sorry to have blooped again in that regard !

 

I'm intrigued by the notion of 'avoiding evolution.' (The Noeo science thread got me thinking.)

(I haven't seen that thread.)

 

I'm wondering what this means to those of you who 'avoid' it.

Selective avoidance.

 

Is it must macro-evolution (as in 'gazillions of incremental changes finally leading up to earth as we know it') that you avoid?

This remains theory and speculation. From that knowledge, we approach macro-evolution and discuss it.

 

Or do you also not teach micro-evolution (as in 'head-lice are evolving and now cannot be killed with most over-the-counter lice killers').

We accept and teach micro-evolution.

 

Do you discuss it at all? Or is it a taboo subject altogether?

No topic is "taboo." Any topic will, however, be evaluated according to the Orthodox Church and patristic teachings, and rejected or accepted within that framework.

 

Is your choice primarily based on your faith beliefs, or on scientific research?

Both. Christians who reject macro-evolution are not morons, as many would derisively "tar" us.

 

Were you taught evolution as a child?

Of course. (b. 1955) Miller's ideas were taught as "new and exciting".

 

I ask this because I don't think I know anyone who doesn't accept evolution as a plausible theory.

So long as you stay with the key word, "theory", I'm with you. It is the colossal error of calling macro-evolution "fact" where I cheerfully wave farewell.

Nonetheless, there are many people who reject everything other than the thought that God created everything in its present form during the course of six, 24-hour days. Neither science nor my religion support that slant.

 

So, it's a stretch for me to understand what seems to be a trend in some home-schooling circles.

As the contemporary homeschooling movement was (and remains) fueled strongly by Protestant Christians whose religion rejects evolution of some or all variants, this isn't a "trend", but an "always been there" component.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read this entire thread but just wanted to throw out an answer.

 

We believe God created the world. We are not necessarily New Earth theology believers though.

 

I know parents who won't even take their kids to museums that talk about Evolution and won't even allow their kids to ride amusement park rides that focus on anything with evolution in them (like Universe of Energy at Disney). We are so NOT like that! We use the experiences to discuss varying viewpoints and why we believe in a God who created the Universe and why some people don't believe that.

 

I actually think I would have more "issues" with visiting the Creation Museum than a reg. museum, but I haven't been so I could be wrong.

 

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Christian and I teach evolution. I read Francis Collin's book http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253383242&sr=8-1

 

The Language Of God and had a total come to Jesus moment that I didn't have to have my faith and science oppose eachother. I happily taught it from then on.

 

And, from Merriam Webster-when they call it the Theory of Evolution, it's not the 2nd definition. So when people say "evolution is just a theory", they're not using the correct scientific definition.

 

Main Entry: the·o·ry

Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries

Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein

Date: 1592

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2 : abstract thought : speculation

3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

synonyms see hypothesis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread had been most helpful. I will be covering evolution from a secular viewpoint this fall at the start of our ancients year. We will be reading Genesis and other world creation stories along with it. Prior to homeschooling and reading posts on forums like this one, I lived in a creation/evolution bubble. Foolishly, I thought that one could believe in a higher being/consciousness and follow evolution. I still do believe that.:D

 

Me too. I believe in evolution as fact but at the same time I believe that God created it all. I believe that he had a "plan" from the very beginning. Evolution is just how that "plan" has played out over millions and millions of years.

 

I teach my children evolution but we give God the glory for all of it.

 

I also had not been exposed to young earth creationalist until I started homeschooling. Now it seems that this is all I hear. I don't personally know of one homeschooling family that teaches evolution as fact. I'm sure you guys are out there. I just haven't met you yet. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't go out of my way to avoid it. We have at least a dozen dinosaur books that mention it. Discovery Channel shows we enjoy always embrace it. That said, I don't seek out texts that promote it. We enjoy Abeka and Apologia for science. I don't feel I have to be scared of evolution. My children will make their own decision with all the combined knowledge and resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has been referenced yet, but the book Beyond the Firmament by Gordon Glover is superb. In addition to Collins' book, The Language of God, this read changed my thinking and gave me final peace on this issue. If anyone is interested in an intelligent, respectful presentation of these issues there is a series of videos on utube by Glover which give an overview of what is covered in his book.

 

That said, I believe evidence in nature points to evolution as the best possible explanation, but that much like our acceptance of other natural processes, we don't have to exclude God from being the author and upholder of the universe. The concept of accommodation in Genesis and throughout the Bible makes perfect sense to me theologically. God would not have been focused on giving the Israelites a new creation paradigm in Genesis. His purpose would have been to establish monotheism, not to give them a science lesson complete with concepts that were thousands of years from being discovered. He was accommodating their current picture of the universe (as commonly accepted at that time in history) because those details were not relevant. In my mind it is further evidence for a gracious and wise God who is meeting us where we are at all times. Even on those things we have wrong. His message in the Bible is a theological one, not a scientific one. IMHO we as Christians will never convince the unbelieving world with scientific proofs; I don't think God gives us this kind of evidence on purpose. Jesus himself said it is by our love that we will be set apart and known as His followers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I teach it.

 

Something I remember from high school debate team was the exercise where we had to debate a position opposite to that we believed in. Why? Because if nothing else, it made you stronger in your own position. That's sort of my general philosophy on teaching things to my kids, and presenting them with information.

 

But I'm also okay with my kids arriving at their own truths. I encourage the journey, and would consider it remiss on my part to expect that fall blindly in line with the truths I myself have arrived at - whether we're talking about science, faith, or Santa Claus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, how much time do most homeschoolers spend teaching their children about things they don't think are true or accurate? Since I don't believe that evolution is the correct explanation for life on earth, for me to devote lots of time teaching my children about the details of evolution would be comparable to an atheist devoting lots of time to teaching their child about the God of the Bible... just doesn't make a lot of sense. This doesn't mean that we don't acknowledge that evolution is the prevailing theory in science today (just as the atheist would inform their child "this is what some people believe" when it comes to the Bible), we do that. And as our kids get older, we compare and contrast creation with evolution... but as far as spending a lot of time on it, no, we don't, because we believe it is error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me too. I believe in evolution as fact but at the same time I believe that God created it all. I believe that he had a "plan" from the very beginning. Evolution is just how that "plan" has played out over millions and millions of years.

 

I teach my children evolution but we give God the glory for all of it.

 

I also had not been exposed to young earth creationalist until I started homeschooling. Now it seems that this is all I hear. I don't personally know of one homeschooling family that teaches evolution as fact. I'm sure you guys are out there. I just haven't met you yet. ;)

 

Hi, nice to meet you :tongue_smilie:. We are a homeschooling family that teaches evolution, though I'm not especially Christian, so the Bible compatability issues is nonexistent for me. Though I have read the Bible, and I don't recall anything in Genesis that specifically excluded the concept of the big Bang and subsequent evolution. Genesis never specified how god did anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...