S/of evolution

[tntgoodwin]

This may be an odd question, but I will attempt it anyway.

We are Young Earth Creationists, but I want to make sure my kids get a very solid understanding of evolution, being the current, widely accepted, prevalent scientific understanding of things. I was taught science using aBeka, and thought I understood evolution, but it turns out I was completely misinformed about what evolutionists believe or accept.

Is there a good science curriculum out there that does a solid job explaining both evolution and Creationism /Intelligent Design?

 

Thanks!

[TheHomeScientist]

Evolution and creationism/ID are utterly mutually exclusive. If one is right, the other must be wrong. There is zero debate among scientists about the reality of evolution. The theory of evolution is as universally accepted among scientists as, say, the germ theory of disease or atomic theory or gravitational theory.

 

Accordingly, you won't find any real scientist writing a text that treats creationism/ID as anything other than religious mythology. Scientists are simply not capable of adopting that mindset or of writing convincingly about it. Conversely, anyone who writes in support of creationism/ID, regardless of what supposed scientific credentials that person holds, is simply incapable of covering evolution properly.

 

In other words, you're not going to find both evolution and creationism/ID presented in one book, at least not one that does justice to evolution. I'd recommend that you use Jerry Coyne's book _Why Evolution is True_ to present evolution to your kids. It's not overly technical and is written to be accessible to non-scientists.

[melissel]

:lurk5:

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

 

Accordingly, you won't find any real scientist writing a text that treats creationism/ID as anything other than religious mythology. Scientists are simply not capable of adopting that mindset or of writing convincingly about it. Conversely, anyone who writes in support of creationism/ID, regardless of what supposed scientific credentials that person holds, is simply incapable of covering evolution properly.

 

 

 

:001_huh: wow

[magnificent_baby]

Evolution and creationism/ID are utterly mutually exclusive. If one is right, the other must be wrong. There is zero debate among scientists about the reality of evolution. The theory of evolution is as universally accepted among scientists as, say, the germ theory of disease or atomic theory or gravitational theory.

 

Accordingly, you won't find any real scientist writing a text that treats creationism/ID as anything other than religious mythology. Scientists are simply not capable of adopting that mindset or of writing convincingly about it. Conversely, anyone who writes in support of creationism/ID, regardless of what supposed scientific credentials that person holds, is simply incapable of covering evolution properly.

 

In other words, you're not going to find both evolution and creationism/ID presented in one book, at least not one that does justice to evolution. I'd recommend that you use Jerry Coyne's book _Why Evolution is True_ to present evolution to your kids. It's not overly technical and is written to be accessible to non-scientists.

 

I disagree with your statement above (if I am reading correctly what you are asserting).

 

You should watch the documentary Expelled by Ben Stein.

[TheHomeScientist]

I disagree with your statement above (if I am reading correctly what you are asserting).

 

You should watch the documentary Expelled by Ben Stein.

 

I have watched it. I had a very hard time sitting all the way through it. It was nauseating. Ben Stein is a lying weasel who understands nothing about science. Every one of the real scientists who appeared in that mess was mouse-trapped and quote-mined to intentionally distort their positions.

 

Just to be clear here, the issue is not religion per se. It's support for creationism/ID, which no scientist supports. There are many religious scientists. Ken Miller, for example, is a devout Catholic. If you ask him, he'll tell you that evolution is true and that creationism/ID is garbage. Similarly, Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian. If you ask him, he'll tell you that evolution is true and creationism/ID is garbage.

 

Those few so-called scientists who support creationism/ID are held in contempt by real scientists. Most of these supposed scientists have worthless degrees from religious colleges, and those few who do have graduate degrees from real colleges clearly went into the graduate programs determined not to actually learn anything about the subject.

[tntgoodwin]

I am not a big fan of speaking in absolutes that way (zero disagreement, no scientists, etc), but thanks for the book recommendation.

[Catherine]

Check out the evolution lessons at evolution.berkley.edu The site has lessons for grades 1-12. Very useful.

[magnificent_baby]

I have watched it. I had a very hard time sitting all the way through it. It was nauseating. Ben Stein is a lying weasel who understands nothing about science. Every one of the real scientists who appeared in that mess was mouse-trapped and quote-mined to intentionally distort their positions.

 

Just to be clear here, the issue is not religion per se. It's support for creationism/ID, which no scientist supports. There are many religious scientists. Ken Miller, for example, is a devout Catholic. If you ask him, he'll tell you that evolution is true and that creationism/ID is garbage. Similarly, Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian. If you ask him, he'll tell you that evolution is true and creationism/ID is garbage.

 

Those few so-called scientists who support creationism/ID are held in contempt by real scientists. Most of these supposed scientists have worthless degrees from religious colleges, and those few who do have graduate degrees from real colleges clearly went into the graduate programs determined not to actually learn anything about the subject.

 

I will have to look up the two names above...never heard of either one. Interesting.

 

I don't really want to debate and I'm running short on time, but I think it is both incorrect and unfair to assert that scientists that do not share your views are "not real" scientists and hold "worthless" degrees.

[leeannpal]

Evolution and creationism/ID are utterly mutually exclusive. If one is right, the other must be wrong. There is zero debate among scientists about the reality of evolution. The theory of evolution is as universally accepted among scientists as, say, the germ theory of disease or atomic theory or gravitational theory.

 

Accordingly, you won't find any real scientist writing a text that treats creationism/ID as anything other than religious mythology. Scientists are simply not capable of adopting that mindset or of writing convincingly about it. Conversely, anyone who writes in support of creationism/ID, regardless of what supposed scientific credentials that person holds, is simply incapable of covering evolution properly.

 

In other words, you're not going to find both evolution and creationism/ID presented in one book, at least not one that does justice to evolution. I'd recommend that you use Jerry Coyne's book _Why Evolution is True_ to present evolution to your kids. It's not overly technical and is written to be accessible to non-scientists.

 

I completely disagree with your premise. I am an old earth creationist who has no idea when God created the earth because I believe that God exist apart from time. Therefore, the creation of the earth does not have to have a timeline. I am fine with certain aspects of evolutionary theory such as "survival of the fittest" and species adaptation. However, even "true" scientist admith that there is no proof of the big bang. Fwiw, there are quite a few Christians out there that think aspects of evolution mesh fine with the idea of intelligent design-after all, who do you think "created" evolutionary practices?;)

[TheHomeScientist]

I am not a big fan of speaking in absolutes that way (zero disagreement, no scientists, etc), but thanks for the book recommendation.

 

Well, how else to speak but in absolutes when one is speaking about absolutes?

 

Scientists do not attempt to redefine theology to suit their views, and do not appreciate theologists attempting to redefine science to suit their views. To scientists, evolutionary theory is as certain as the sun rising tomorrow, literally. Creationism/ID is on a par with the green cheese moon theory and the Easter bunny. Evolution is supported by a massive pile of evidence, millions of observations and experiment over more than 150 years, every one of which supports the truth of evolution and not one of which denies it. Creationism/ID is supported by zero evidence, and to the extent that creationism/ID makes truth claims, those have been refuted absolutely by science.

 

I support your absolute right to teach your children as you wish. But if you choose to teach them "religious science", you're not teaching them science at all. You're teaching them theology with a thin veneer of science, cargo-cult science with all of the superficialities but none of the essence. That essence, of course, is the scientific method, at which creationism/ID fails utterly.

[TheHomeScientist]

I will have to look up the two names above...never heard of either one. Interesting.

 

I don't really want to debate and I'm running short on time, but I think it is both incorrect and unfair to assert that scientists that do not share your views are "not real" scientists and hold "worthless" degrees.

 

They are two of the best-known scientists who are also devoutly religion. Ken Miller is familiar to many homeschoolers as the co-author of Miller-Levine Biology. Francis Collins headed the Human Genome Project and is currently the director of the National Institutes of Health.

 

My views, as you call them, are that theology is not science, and vice versa, and that when theology attempts to redefine science to suit its own ends that attempt is contemptible, as is any so-called scientist who supports that attempt.

[Chelli]

Basing off of the OP's original question, is there a book then that directly addresses how evolutionists respond to the supposed weaknesses in evolution that YEC people cite? A type of "I used to be a creationist and now I'm an evolutionist" book?

[TheHomeScientist]

I completely disagree with your premise. I am an old earth creationist who has no idea when God created the earth because I believe that God exist apart from time. Therefore, the creation of the earth does not have to have a timeline. I am fine with certain aspects of evolutionary theory such as "survival of the fittest" and species adaptation. However, even "true" scientist admith that there is no proof of the big bang. Fwiw, there are quite a few Christians out there that think aspects of evolution mesh fine with the idea of intelligent design-after all, who do you think "created" evolutionary practices?;)

 

Science does not acknowledge the supernatural, period.

 

Evolutionary theory has nothing whatsoever to do with either Big Bang Theory (for which there is indeed a massive pile of evidence) nor abiogenesis. You are attempting to conflate three entirely separate issues.

 

As to who "created" evolution, Charles Darwin was about as atheist as they come.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Ken Miller, for example, is a devout Catholic. If you ask him, he'll tell you that evolution is true and that creationism/ID is garbage. Similarly, Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian. If you ask him, he'll tell you that evolution is true and creationism/ID is garbage.

 

 

So Ken Miller, the devout Catholic, rejects the Nicene Creed? I thought affirming the creed was obligatory for Catholics.

 

I thought card-carrying Catholics acknowledged God as Creator of heaven and earth in some fashion, even if they believe in the various other forms of evolution as well.

 

I didn't know they could just reject Catholic creeds outright and still be considered devout Catholics.

 

According to Wikipedia, the Catholic church's official position is in support of theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation. Evidently Catholics can maintain belief in evolution as long as their belief does not contradict church doctrine, which is that God is Creator.

 

Here is the Nicene Creed, in case you don't know it:

 

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

 

 

And then there's the Apostle's Creed:

 

 

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth;

I believe in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord; He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day He rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body,and the life everlasting. Amen.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Tibbie Dunbar

[TheHomeScientist]

Basing off of the OP's original question, is there a book then that directly addresses how evolutionists respond to the supposed weaknesses in evolution that YEC people cite? A type of "I used to be a creationist and now I'm an evolutionist" book?

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

[Lang Syne Boardie]

This is interesting: A tract from www.catholic.com about evolution, Adam and Eve, etc.

 

These are a few of the non-negotiables for Catholics:

 

The universe was created by a Creator out of nothing.

Adam and Eve were real people.

The fall happened.

Any evolution is under the impetus and guidance of God.

[EmilyK]

So Ken Miller, the devout Catholic, rejects the Nicene Creed? I thought affirming the creed was obligatory for Catholics.

 

I'm a life-long Episcopalian and went to Catholic school. I'm very familiar with those creeds, as were my teachers, nuns, priests, etc. I never heard any denial of evolutionary theory, big bang, etc. from any teacher or religious leader that I've had in those denominations.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Well, I finally went to the horse's mouth. Here is Ken Miller's Evolution Page.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I'm a life-long Episcopalian and went to Catholic school. I'm very familiar with those creeds, as were my teachers, nuns, priests, etc. I never heard any denial of evolutionary theory, big bang, etc. from any teacher or religious leader that I've had in those denominations.

 

What I was reading just now said that evolution would be taught as fact in a Catholic school because Catholic teaching doesn't forbid or contradict it, but somebody along the line should have told you that God made the heavens before the Big Bang happened because Catholic doctrine does necessitate initial creation by and ongoing direction from God. Or something like that.

 

Edited to add: I am not Catholic and certainly not trying to speak for Catholics. That just really caught my eye, that someone could be described as a "devout" Catholic and entirely deny a Creator. Not logical. Surely we have enough Catholics here to explain further, so I hope they will read this thread and do that.

[leeannpal]

Science does not acknowledge the supernatural, period.

 

Evolutionary theory has nothing whatsoever to do with either Big Bang Theory (for which there is indeed a massive pile of evidence) nor abiogenesis. You are attempting to conflate three entirely separate issues.

 

As to who "created" evolution, Charles Darwin was about as atheist as they come.

 

Charles Darwin did not "create" the process of evolution; he wrote about the process. Where did the process originate?

[K&Rs Mom]

I didn't know they could just reject Catholic creeds outright and still be considered devout Catholics.

 

I don't know what this individual believes, but people can call themselves whatever they want. Why anyone would say they're part of a religion that they disagree with, I don't know, but it happens frequently. Whether someone is considered a devout anything is mostly based on how they have decided to portray themselves, for whatever reasons. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Church isn't labeling this person as a devout Catholic, either he is or someone talking about him is (with or without his input).

 

 

What I was reading just now said that evolution would be taught as fact in a Catholic school because Catholic teaching doesn't forbid or contradict it, but somebody along the line should have told you that God made the heavens before the Big Bang happened because Catholic doctrine does necessitate initial creation by and ongoing direction from God. Or something like that.

 

That sounds about right. The Church's position is basically that we don't know how He did it, so as far as the theory of evolution works scientifically it's fine as an explanation. There are holes in the theory that we might fill with God while others might fill them with other ideas.

Edited January 29, 2012 by K&Rs Mom

[Iucounu]

Any proponent of ID / creationism cannot be trusted to truthfully speak or write about evolution. Any scientist (there's no need for a term like "evolutionist", it's covered by "scientist") will not present ID / creationism favorably, although they may do so reliably.

 

For a religious person who believes in creationism but wishes to present both, I agree that two sources are necessary-- you can't rely on creationist resources for truth about science, and you can't rely on scientific sources for charitable views of creationism. Your best bet is probably to find clear sources for each that don't discuss the other at all.

 

ETA: I also laud your desire to present the scientific view accurately, believing as you do.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Iucounu

[ChandlerMom]

Evolution and creationism/ID are utterly mutually exclusive. If one is right, the other must be wrong. There is zero debate among scientists about the reality of evolution. The theory of evolution is as universally accepted among scientists as, say, the germ theory of disease or atomic theory or gravitational theory.

 

Accordingly, you won't find any real scientist writing a text that treats creationism/ID as anything other than religious mythology. Scientists are simply not capable of adopting that mindset or of writing convincingly about it. Conversely, anyone who writes in support of creationism/ID, regardless of what supposed scientific credentials that person holds, is simply incapable of covering evolution properly.

 

In other words, you're not going to find both evolution and creationism/ID presented in one book, at least not one that does justice to evolution. I'd recommend that you use Jerry Coyne's book _Why Evolution is True_ to present evolution to your kids. It's not overly technical and is written to be accessible to non-scientists.

 

Blunt, but correct. In science this is no more debated than whether the earth is flat. By any measure, there is far more evidence for the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity. This fact can be upsetting to people since the although 99.85% of biological scientists (in 1987 poll) affirm evolution but only 32% of the US general population do. I believe a lot of that is due to how poorly evolution is taught in schools (60% of high school science teachers are afraid to teach evolution, and less than half even had a working understanding of evolution)?

 

I'll be lazy and point folks to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

<<excerpt>>

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[36] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[37] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[38]

>>

The American Assoc for the Advancement of Science and NAS are very clear where they stand. So, i fyou want to teach that creationism and ID are TRUE -- that's your belief and that is fine. But it's not science, it is not a scientific theory, and to my knowledge there has been ZERO peer-reviewed scientific papers published asserting YE, OE, or ID.

 

To the OP, I sincerely laud your desire to educate your child about the scientific view on this issue. A nice, gentle book on evolution is, "Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be" by Daniel Loxton. I think it's fine to point our to your dc that the scientific method doesn't allow for God to be considered as a cause because God cannot be tested or used to make predictions. I don't think science and religion are inherently at odds, it's just two different ways at looking for truth.

 

I do think that when some creationist curricula choose to misrepresent evolution, it does a great disservice (as you discovered in your own life). The theory of evolution has contributed greatly to our lives, esp in fields like medicine and research into the human genome. I think everyone should understand: what science is (and is not), what evolution theory says, how it has been useful, and (last but not least) here is what we believe is the truth (whatever that may be) and why.

[Daisy]

This may be an odd question, but I will attempt it anyway.

We are Young Earth Creationists, but I want to make sure my kids get a very solid understanding of evolution, being the current, widely accepted, prevalent scientific understanding of things. I was taught science using aBeka, and thought I understood evolution, but it turns out I was completely misinformed about what evolutionists believe or accept.

Is there a good science curriculum out there that does a solid job explaining both evolution and Creationism /Intelligent Design?

 

Thanks!

 

It is VERY tough to find books that do what you want because most evolution books sound like the below quote. Rinse and repeat ad nauseam. I finally gave up when I realized every children's evolution book I'd found didn't encourage real thinking. They just stated the science catechism and expected you to revere it.

 

Evolution and creationism/ID are utterly mutually exclusive. If one is right, the other must be wrong. There is zero debate among scientists about the reality of evolution. The theory of evolution is as universally accepted among scientists as, say, the germ theory of disease or atomic theory or gravitational theory.

 

Accordingly, you won't find any real scientist writing a text that treats creationism/ID as anything other than religious mythology. Scientists are simply not capable of adopting that mindset or of writing convincingly about it. Conversely, anyone who writes in support of creationism/ID, regardless of what supposed scientific credentials that person holds, is simply incapable of covering evolution properly.

 

In other words, you're not going to find both evolution and creationism/ID presented in one book, at least not one that does justice to evolution. I'd recommend that you use Jerry Coyne's book _Why Evolution is True_ to present evolution to your kids. It's not overly technical and is written to be accessible to non-scientists.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Daisy

[WishboneDawn]

Basing off of the OP's original question, is there a book then that directly addresses how evolutionists respond to the supposed weaknesses in evolution that YEC people cite? A type of "I used to be a creationist and now I'm an evolutionist" book?

 

http://Www.talkorigins.org does an excellent job of refuting creationist assertions and exposing fallacies and bad science. I don't know about former creationists but it's an excellent resource.

Edited January 29, 2012 by WishboneDawn

[Joules]

They are two of the best-known scientists who are also devoutly religion. Ken Miller is familiar to many homeschoolers as the co-author of Miller-Levine Biology. Francis Collins headed the Human Genome Project and is currently the director of the National Institutes of Health.

 

 

Ken Miller also wrote a book on evolution (both from a scientific and societal viewpoint)

Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul

[Joules]

Ken Miller also wrote a book on evolution (both from a scientific and societal viewpoint)

Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul

 

I thought it was an excellent book...not sure how I managed to put a thumbs down in my post above??

[EmilyK]

What I was reading just now said that evolution would be taught as fact in a Catholic school because Catholic teaching doesn't forbid or contradict it, but somebody along the line should have told you that God made the heavens before the Big Bang happened because Catholic doctrine does necessitate initial creation by and ongoing direction from God. Or something like that.

 

Edited to add: I am not Catholic and certainly not trying to speak for Catholics. That just really caught my eye, that someone could be described as a "devout" Catholic and entirely deny a Creator. Not logical. Surely we have enough Catholics here to explain further, so I hope they will read this thread and do that.

 

Ok, gotcha; sorry. Somehow I thought you were implying that Catholics should deny evolution.

 

I guess I see religion as answering different questions than science, and I'm happy to find meaning in both.

[Matryoshka]

That just really caught my eye, that someone could be described as a "devout" Catholic and entirely deny a Creator.

 

I'll admit that I didn't read Miller's site, but does he explicitly say anywhere that he denies the existence of a Creator?

 

Evolutionary Theory says exactly nothing about how the universe was created, nor does Big Bang Theory. Both say what happened afterwards (in the case of Evolution, billions of years after).

 

Where everything came from is a mystery to science, therefore not science. A completely separate thing. I can see that someone might not call themselves a "Creationist" and still be able to believe God created the universe (using the Big Bang) - the word "Creationist" is very loaded with a lot of other things that do claim to be at odds with science. But whether or not the universe was originally Created is completely outside science. Not a question science even attempts to address. Those are questions of theology and philosophy.

[susankenny]

Evolution and creationism/ID are utterly mutually exclusive. If one is right, the other must be wrong. There is zero debate among scientists about the reality of evolution. The theory of evolution is as universally accepted among scientists as, say, the germ theory of disease or atomic theory or gravitational theory.

 

Accordingly, you won't find any real scientist writing a text that treats creationism/ID as anything other than religious mythology. Scientists are simply not capable of adopting that mindset or of writing convincingly about it. Conversely, anyone who writes in support of creationism/ID, regardless of what supposed scientific credentials that person holds, is simply incapable of covering evolution properly.

 

In other words, you're not going to find both evolution and creationism/ID presented in one book, at least not one that does justice to evolution. I'd recommend that you use Jerry Coyne's book _Why Evolution is True_ to present evolution to your kids. It's not overly technical and is written to be accessible to non-scientists.

 

Your post is a little insulting honestly & passive aggressive. You insinuate that anyone who dares to think outside of this realm is in an intellectual culd-e-sac.

 

OP, there are scientists that disagree with this. I would look at the intellegent design website for information regarding the scientific aspect of it. ID is not the same as creationism though. I am a young earth creationist that believes the bible is true. Therefore, my belief is faith based.

 

Susan

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I'll admit that I didn't read Miller's site, but does he explicitly say anywhere that he denies the existence of a Creator?

 

Evolutionary Theory says exactly nothing about how the universe was created, nor does Big Bang Theory. Both say what happened afterwards (in the case of Evolution, billions of years after).

 

Where everything came from is a mystery to science, therefore not science. A completely separate thing. I can see that someone might not call themselves a "Creationist" and still be able to believe God created the universe (using the Big Bang) - the word "Creationist" is very loaded with a lot of other things that do claim to be at odds with science. But whether or not the universe was originally Created is completely outside science. Not a question science even attempts to address. Those are questions of theology and philosophy.

 

According to the little bit of digging around I was able to do, I think you are exactly on the right track.

 

I had typed more, but came back to delete b/c I'm pretty sure I'm off-topic and the only one who cares this much, and I probably don't know what I'm talking about anyway.

 

I wish tntgoodwin's question had not been answered with a 2x4 to the head. That was rude. Still, tnt, I agree with Iocuonu that you are not going to find a good understanding of both perspectives from one source. My preferred method is to check out secular library books, including secular high school/college science textbooks, and read those for myself. I read every scientific journal and article that comes to my attention because I find them interesting. We subscribe to National Geographic, we watch NOVA, etc. No fear. When something particular catches my eye I do more research to find out what YE scientists (in whom I believe, they are not imaginary) have to say on that topic, and try to make up my own mind about who makes more sense.

 

That's how I learn more. I'm YE, myself, but unwilling to limit my boys' science learning to YE-specific materials. They deserve a full education in every subject, so they study other religions including evolutionism.

 

(I know that last line will have a few people hopping up and down at my foolishness. So be it.)

Edited January 30, 2012 by Tibbie Dunbar

[Happy Scientist]

This may be an odd question, but I will attempt it anyway.

We are Young Earth Creationists, but I want to make sure my kids get a very solid understanding of evolution, being the current, widely accepted, prevalent scientific understanding of things. I was taught science using aBeka, and thought I understood evolution, but it turns out I was completely misinformed about what evolutionists believe or accept.

Is there a good science curriculum out there that does a solid job explaining both evolution and Creationism /Intelligent Design?

 

Thanks!

 

First, bravo for you! Many people refuse to expose their children to anything that does not agree with their personal beliefs.

 

I doubt that you will find a text that does a good job of explaining evolution, creation, and intelligent design. The creation/ID books always seem to make a mess of the science, and books on evolutionary science don't address religion, because religion is outside the scope of science. Books that cover both always come across as quite arrogant towards views that don't agree with the author. That is a shame, because that arrogance usually causes anyone of the other belief to immediately stop listening.

 

I have had several long, pleasant conversations with creationist ministers, with the goal of understanding things from their point of view. The first, big step is finding common ground on definitions. If you compare definitions for words such as theory, species, law, evolution and science, you will find that the two sides of the conversation have very different definitions for the same words. Once both sides agree on what the words mean, it suddenly becomes much easier to carry on a meaningful, civil conversation.

 

That does not mean that we resolved the difference between evolution and young Earth creationism. From a scientific point of view, evidence is everything. No matter how much scientists may want something to be true, if the evidence indicates otherwise, the idea is either changed or discarded. We may see that if the recent neutrino experiments show that e=mc2 is not correct. If the physical evidence did not support the idea of evolution, it would be discarded.

 

On the other hand, religion puts scripture above physical evidence. If the physical evidence does not support the scripture, then the evidence must be wrong. You can't rewrite the scripture to make it fit what you see, and there is no evidence that would convince a religion to discard its scripture.

 

I'm sorry this got so long, but it is a subject that is important to me. If there is anything that I can do to help with your study, please let me know.

[justamouse]

As Catholics, we are free to believe in evolution. There are some [Catholics] that choose to believe YE. Funny enough, a Catholic Priest, Father George Lemaitre actually proposed the Big Bang Theory.

 

wiki

 

was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was also the first to derive what is now known as the Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article[1][2][3][4]. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.[5][6] He sometimes used the title Abbé or Monseigneur.

 

But we believe that God used the Big Bang as a catalyst for creation and used evolution as the means to populate the earth.

 

 

OP, if I were you, I would read Francis Collins' book, The Language of God, read it yourself, and see from there where you want to go with their studies. Because until you can understand it, (and misunderstandings abound) you're not going to be able to choose something for them with any wisdom. Dr. Collins' book is written with much love toward those who don't believe in evolution, and I don't think you're going to find another book explaining evolution with that attribute. And the reason it's explained with such love, is because Dr Collins is an Evangelical and really has a heart for the church. So, I know you won't feel bashed if you read it, which you may feel if you read anything else.

 

blurb:

It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them.

 

 

 

And he's coming out with another book the 15th of next month (eeep! :D) The Language of Science and Faith.

Edited January 30, 2012 by justamouse

[kpnick in nc]

It is VERY tough to find books that do what you want because most evolution books sound like the below quote. Rinse and repeat ad nauseam. I finally gave up when I realized every children's evolution book I'd found didn't encourage real thinking. They just stated the science catechism and expected you to revere it.

 

I confess I haven't shopped around for this type of book yet, but this does not suprise me at all.

 

I personally plan on introducing study of evolution during the logic stage. I am also YEC, so frankly, I am focusing on teaching within that worldview during the grammar stage.

 

By the logic stage, hopefully, my dc will have been introduced to all fields of science and to the scientific method. My vague plan at this point (I have 4 years) is to do an evolution unit study during the logic stage. I will probably use a secular science book so that it is "in their own words." This unit would also accomplish worldview study and logic (examining the arguments and use of logic on both sides).

 

As a pp said, clarifying definitions is a must, which is another reason to wait until logic stage for serious study.

 

In the grammar stage, I find it more important to understand what I do believe. When evolution things come up with DS7, I simply state what we do believe and give a grammar level explanation of the different worldviews. I'm sure it would be much the same as an evolutionist addressing a creationist thing coming up with their dc. We will save the worldview analysis for logic stage.

 

I want my dc to know evolution thoroughly as well. I changed my views to young earth creationism during my time in a science grad program (one with strong evolutionary scientists), so I was immersed long enough to want them to know as much as they can and not be afraid of it.

[Jay3fer]

For a bit of a different (Jewish) perspective, you might try one of Gerald L. Schroeder's books.

Genesis and the Big Bang offers a few possible reconciliations of the Biblical account with the scientific, written by a "real" physicist with over thirty years of experience in research and a PhD from MIT, who also has a background in Bible study (he now lives in Israel).

 

p.s. Just noticed he has a section of "myths" on his own website, divided into:

- Top 5 religious myths popularly accepted as fact

- Top 5 scientific myths popularly accepted as fact

Easy, free reading and VERY thought-provoking!

 

I'm not saying EVERY Jew agrees with what he has to say; I doubt you could find even a roomful who'd agree 100%. The nice thing about being Jewish is the diversity of opinions! The not-nice thing about being Jewish is... the diversity of opinions!

 

I personally plan to introduce good living books on evolution at appropriate points in our study. Yes, the kids ask when EXACTLY that stuff happened, like dinosaurs. I don't have great answers, beyond, "some people believe this... some people believe that." I always end with the fact that we firmly believe that God created it all and knows the answers; we just don't know enough yet. Even scientists don't know enough yet.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Jay3fer

[Cricket]

To the OP, I just came across this book this morning: Explore Evolution. It looks interesting and may be helpful for you. It was written by two microbiologist and looks like it is high school/adult level.

 

Here is the book description from Amazon:

 

The purpose of Explore Evolution is to examine the scientific controversy about Darwin's theory, and in particular, the contemporary version of the theory known as neo-Darwinism. Whether you are a teacher, a student, or a parent, this book will help you understand what Darwin's theory of evolution is, why many scientists find it persuasive, and why other scientists question the theory or some key aspects of it.Sometimes, scientists find that the same evidence can be explained in more than one way. When there are competing theories, reasonable people can (and do) disagree about which theory best explains the evidence. Furthermore, in the historical sciences, neither side can directly verify its claims about past events. Fortunately, even though we can't directly verify these claims, we can test them. How? First, we gather as much evidence as possible and look at it carefully. Then, we compare the competing theories in light of how well they explain the evidence.

Looking at the evidence and comparing the competing explanations will provide the most reliable path to discovering which theory, if any, gives the best account of the evidence at hand. In science, it is ultimately the evidence-and all of the evidence-that should tell us which theory offers the best explanation. This book will help you explore that evidence, and we hope it will stimulate your interest in these questions as you weigh the competing arguments.

[lionfamily1999]

http://www.christianlibertypress.com/productsBySubject.asp?cat=40

 

This is a link to science books by/from Christian Liberty Press. We started using their science books when my dc voiced concerns about some of the secular resources we used.

 

This book in particular (http://www.christianlibertypress.com/proddetail.asp?prod=CLP68910&cat=40), for high school Biology, covers various evolution theories in depth. Dd is enjoying it, but it's pretty thick and covers a LOT of information. I like it, because it points out some common lies that are used to back up evolution teachings.

 

I hope this helps :D

 

Also, if you stream netflix, "God of Wonders" is a GREAT movie.

[Mergath]

This book is wonderful for looking into the human body to find (yet more) proof of evolution:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0375424474

 

It makes an extremely compelling case.

[Spy Car]

First, bravo for you! Many people refuse to expose their children to anything that does not agree with their personal beliefs.

 

I doubt that you will find a text that does a good job of explaining evolution, creation, and intelligent design. The creation/ID books always seem to make a mess of the science, and books on evolutionary science don't address religion, because religion is outside the scope of science. Books that cover both always come across as quite arrogant towards views that don't agree with the author. That is a shame, because that arrogance usually causes anyone of the other belief to immediately stop listening.

 

I have had several long, pleasant conversations with creationist ministers, with the goal of understanding things from their point of view. The first, big step is finding common ground on definitions. If you compare definitions for words such as theory, species, law, evolution and science, you will find that the two sides of the conversation have very different definitions for the same words. Once both sides agree on what the words mean, it suddenly becomes much easier to carry on a meaningful, civil conversation.

 

That does not mean that we resolved the difference between evolution and young Earth creationism. From a scientific point of view, evidence is everything. No matter how much scientists may want something to be true, if the evidence indicates otherwise, the idea is either changed or discarded. We may see that if the recent neutrino experiments show that e=mc2 is not correct. If the physical evidence did not support the idea of evolution, it would be discarded.

 

On the other hand, religion puts scripture above physical evidence. If the physical evidence does not support the scripture, then the evidence must be wrong. You can't rewrite the scripture to make it fit what you see, and there is no evidence that would convince a religion to discard its scripture.

 

I'm sorry this got so long, but it is a subject that is important to me. If there is anything that I can do to help with your study, please let me know.

 

Well said!

 

Bill

[tntgoodwin]

Thanks everyone, I will keep all these in mind and look further into them.

I want to be careful to not select a science curriculum that merely sets up and knocks down straw-men.

[Joy at Home]

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Grand-Experiment-Carl-Werner/dp/0892216816/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328279863&sr=8-1

 

Lisa

[zenjenn]

On the other hand, religion puts scripture above physical evidence.

 

This is sometimes, but not always true.

 

There are plenty of religious people, as well as official religious doctrines, who concede that an understanding of scripture and/or religious tradition must be re-evaluated based on modern factors (scientific or societal.) For that matter, I cant think of anyone off hand who still believes the sun revolves around the Earth, regardless of what the Bible says about Joshua stopping the sun.

 

To the OP, since you mention you had been misinformed about what evolutionists believe, you may also want to learn about the concept of theistic evolution.

 

This argument is too often trivialized into two camps - atheists who believe in evolution (and that evolution somehow disproves God's existence), and religious people who believe the earth was created in 7 twenty-four hour periods. There are plenty of people who believe in God and also believe in evolutionary processes.

Edited February 3, 2012 by zenjenn

[TXMary2]

Evolution and creationism/ID are utterly mutually exclusive. If one is right, the other must be wrong. There is zero debate among scientists about the reality of evolution. The theory of evolution is as universally accepted among scientists as, say, the germ theory of disease or atomic theory or gravitational theory.

 

Accordingly, you won't find any real scientist writing a text that treats creationism/ID as anything other than religious mythology. Scientists are simply not capable of adopting that mindset or of writing convincingly about it. Conversely, anyone who writes in support of creationism/ID, regardless of what supposed scientific credentials that person holds, is simply incapable of covering evolution properly.

 

In other words, you're not going to find both evolution and creationism/ID presented in one book, at least not one that does justice to evolution. I'd recommend that you use Jerry Coyne's book _Why Evolution is True_ to present evolution to your kids. It's not overly technical and is written to be accessible to non-scientists.

 

 

Wow. Jerry Coyne is a hateful human being, not capable of being fair or objective. He's a big fan of insulting christians (much like Dawkins) and for that reason he discredits himself as having a worthy opinion. If I knew then, what I know now I would have never allowed his book through my front door.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Basing off of the OP's original question, is there a book then that directly addresses how evolutionists respond to the supposed weaknesses in evolution that YEC people cite? A type of "I used to be a creationist and now I'm an evolutionist" book?

 

Over the last five or so years, I've been on the path from Old Earth Creationism to Evolution (which disproves nothing about God).

 

Some books I've found useful include:

 

Frances Collins' The Language of God and then The Language of Science and Faith. The first discusses why he, a scientist and Christian, thinks that Christians have no need to fear science or evolution. The Language of Science and Faith is a pretty good intro to evolution for those who are coming to it from a background of creationism. The BioLogos website has also been helpful for thinking through evolution in light of the Bible.

 

A consise book that I found at the Smithsonian is Science: Evolution and Creationism from the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. It does a pretty good job of going through what evolution entails. It also counters some of the popular claims about evolution by creationists.

 

Ironically, it was a pro-creation book Evolution: The Grand Experiment that drove me from the YEC point of view. The cherry picking of quotations in that book to make it look like devoted evolutionary biologists questioned the validity of evolution was disengenuous to me. (The kerfluffle over Ken Ham and Peter Enns and the Great Homeschool Conventions last summer was the nail in the coffin.)

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I have watched it. I had a very hard time sitting all the way through it. It was nauseating. Ben Stein is a lying weasel who understands nothing about science. Every one of the real scientists who appeared in that mess was mouse-trapped and quote-mined to intentionally distort their positions.

 

Just to be clear here, the issue is not religion per se. It's support for creationism/ID, which no scientist supports. There are many religious scientists. Ken Miller, for example, is a devout Catholic. If you ask him, he'll tell you that evolution is true and that creationism/ID is garbage. Similarly, Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian. If you ask him, he'll tell you that evolution is true and creationism/ID is garbage.

 

Those few so-called scientists who support creationism/ID are held in contempt by real scientists. Most of these supposed scientists have worthless degrees from religious colleges, and those few who do have graduate degrees from real colleges clearly went into the graduate programs determined not to actually learn anything about the subject.

 

You're relatively new to the forum, so you missed the raging debates here in the past over this topic. (Search Kerfluffle if you're inclined to read about one of them.) The debate wasn't new last summer, but it was loud.

 

Name calling, whether it is heretic, compromiser, or lying weasel haven't been the means to encourage calm discussion of issues that people have questions about. Those are the sort of terms that have resulted in angry replies and locked threads.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Tibbie,

 

I remember reading a lengthy article from the Vatican about the intersection of faith and evolution. Unfortunately, it's eluding me today.

 

I did find this article, from EWTVs website, which covered much of the same ground. I'm not Catholic, but I find that I frequently turn to the Catholic church for thoughtful insight on this topic.

[TheHomeScientist]

You're relatively new to the forum, so you missed the raging debates here in the past over this topic. (Search Kerfluffle if you're inclined to read about one of them.) The debate wasn't new last summer, but it was loud.

 

Name calling, whether it is heretic, compromiser, or lying weasel haven't been the means to encourage calm discussion of issues that people have questions about. Those are the sort of terms that have resulted in angry replies and locked threads.

 

Yeah, well, ask any of the real scientists who appeared in that nasty little propaganda piece and you'll find that "lying weasel" is about the nicest thing that any of them will have to say about Ben Stein. Search their blogs for the movie title, and you'll find that Stein entirely misrepresented the purpose of the movie and then proceeded to interview them under false pretenses and edit the interviews to intentionally distort their positions.

 

Here's a site maintained by the National Center for Science Education that tells you everything you need to know about Expelled.

 

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Yeah, well, ask any of the real scientists who appeared in that nasty little propaganda piece and you'll find that "lying weasel" is about the nicest thing that any of them will have to say about Ben Stein. Search their blogs for the movie title, and you'll find that Stein entirely misrepresented the purpose of the movie and then proceeded to interview them under false pretenses and edit the interviews to intentionally distort their positions.

 

Here's a site maintained by the National Center for Science Education that tells you everything you need to know about Expelled.

 

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

 

Please note that I said nothing about the movie. Haven't seen more than the trailer, so I'm not in a position to comment.

 

I think you'll find people are more than willing to investigate information about bias, selective quoting, and misleading timelines. After all, many of the members of the forum were first intrigued by the classical emphasis on logic and historical sourcing.

 

I am only suggesting that links and discussions can be shared without name calling from any corner. (Mutter what you like on your side of the computer, I know I have people whose names and comments elicit Rocky Horror style hissing in my computer room.)

 

There have been seasons on this forum where the board was filled with locked threads and banned members. (I seem to recall that at one point the General Board was closed entirely for a day or so.) Knowing where the trip wires are can keep information flowing freely.

 

Off to teach a non-controversial subject, like diagraming. :D

[zenjenn]

Those few so-called scientists who support creationism/ID are held in contempt by real scientists.

 

Unless the scientist is trying to support creationism with their science, the "real" scientist that holds such a person in contempt is demonstrating bias.

 

For example, it is a common belief among orthodox Jewish scientists I know, to believe that 5772 years ago God snapped the universe into existence in 7 days, including all the physical evidence of an aged universe. They do not try to rationalize or explain the evidence to make it fit with Biblical understanding. They acknowledge the evidence exists, but embrace a belief in a literal Genesis as a matter of faith.

 

You cannot argue with faith. You can argue when someone claims something is demonstrably false. When an irrational creationist starts talking about people running around with dinosaurs, that is (to the extent of observing evidence) demonstrably false. If the creationist believes that God wove the fossil record into existence along with a 7-day creation process, well, I can't really argue with that. I do not believe it, but I can't demonstrate that it is false - I wasn't there. I don't find it to be a particularly irrational approach to reconcile observable reality with faith, and certainly not worth of contempt.