Christian families -- did you use The Usborne Encyclopedia of World History --

[3rugrats]

lol, no one who understands evolution does.

 

;)

really? I thought that was the basic teaching that man evolved from apes? no?

[albeto.]

really? I thought that was the basic teaching that man evolved from apes? no?

 

Nope. Humans are apes. That is to say, in the taxonomic classification in which our species is categorized, humans are "great apes."

[Syllieann]

really? I thought that was the basic teaching that man evolved from apes? no?

No, they share a common ancestry. Many ye "science" set up all sorts of straw men about evolution. Another one is that evolution says that life came about by chance collision of molecules. Evolution doesn't address the origin of life, nor does it specify the reason (chance vs design). It is only about changes in allele frequency. The reason for those changes are many.

[Reefgazer]

We are Christian and have no issue with it. Usborne presents evolution as fact because it is.

[Bluegoat]

Um, none do.

 

It would be nice to think that is true, but I would not bet a lot of money on it.  Plenty of people who are positive towards science are also pretty ignorant.

[Bluegoat]

really? I thought that was the basic teaching that man evolved from apes? no?

 

Apes is a family that includes chimps, gorillas, orangatangs, gibbons, and us.  In the past it also included other species which no longer exist.    According to evolutionary theory, the different families of apes in the past came from common ancestors, a bit like a family tree.  All the modern apes are like the current generation of the family tree - they are our cousins many times removed.  The chimps are the living group we share the most recent common ancestor with (5 million years IIRC, but it has been a while since I looked at this.)  Other common ancestors with other apes are further back.  Those ancestors would be in the ape family too, but not a chimp or a homo sapiens. 

[mommaduck]

It would be nice to think that is true, but I would not bet a lot of money on it.  Plenty of people who are positive towards science are also pretty ignorant.

 

I've heard some that believe in evolution, not necessarily well versed academically, that DO believe we come from chimps, others that say we came from dolphins, etc. Basically, there are those in general that make everyone in either grouping look bad. There are those creationists that make all creationists look bad (even though creationism is a very, very general group) and those that are evolutionists that make evolutionists look bad. There are those that believe in creation AND evolution as well. Not all Christians see faith as being at odds with science, nor science at odds with faith. (and yes, I've seen books that state that humans come from apes (shown as gorillas or chimps...sometimes with absolutely no clarification) and no explanation of groupings, similarities, differences, etc.

[albeto.]

I've heard some that believe in evolution, not necessarily well versed academically, that DO believe we come from chimps, others that say we came from dolphins, etc. Basically, there are those in general that make everyone in either grouping look bad. There are those creationists that make all creationists look bad (even though creationism is a very, very general group) and those that are evolutionists that make evolutionists look bad. There are those that believe in creation AND evolution as well. Not all Christians see faith as being at odds with science, nor science at odds with faith.

 

Of course no one can argue with what you may have heard in person, and whether people talk to you about evolving from chimps or dolphins (?), it's hardly relevant with regard to what the theory of evolution is. To suggest "not all evolutionists believe," is to imply most do, or at least it's a commonly accepted belief. That's not a true implication and should be corrected for the sake of being accurate. 

 

Just to nit-pic, and please don't take this to be a personal thing, but we are educators after all and accuracy is part of the game...

 

Evolution isn't a belief. One no more "believes in" evolution than they "believe in" gravity the theory of heliocentrism. One understands a scientific theory, or one does not. Evolution, like gravity and heliocentrism, has been long accepted by the global scientific community to be factual and accurate based on objective factors such as the mountains of data collected. 

 

One who understands the theory of evolution understands the evolution of primates, including homo sapiens.

[maize]

Fun zombie thread.

 

I want a dolphin for a great (...) grandpa.

[OneStepAtATime]

Fun zombie thread.

 

I want a dolphin for a great (...) grandpa.

I love dolphins.   :)

 

And interesting zombie threads....

[ktgrok]

Regarding the bolded, NO evolutionists believe man came from chimps. We believe chimps and man both evolved, separately, from a common ancestor way way way back. NOT that people came from monkeys or chimps. 

Christians that believe in evolution simply believe that at some point that evolution resulted in something that was special, human, and made in the image of God. It's just the how God made it part that is different.

I have no problem with it. I had a bigger problem with it when I was a younger parent, but have learned much over the years. Don't freak over such things. They will see it everywhere. I don't think all evolutionists even hold to the "man came from chimps" view. They need to know as they grow that there are different beliefs on it and that this is what is taught, particularly if they are going into any kind of higher education. Teach them what you believe. Teach them what is taught elsewhere (and it's not just evolution vs YE creationism...there are many views that fall under creation and evolution and some that blend both). Accept as a parent that your child will grow up and may or may not agree with you as an adult (it's best to decide to accept that now). Encourage them to look at all views and consider them, throw them against walls, decide what they believe and why...don't teach them, "because mom and dad and preacher say so or say it's in the Bible". Teach them to think on it critically and, whatever stand they take, to be able to explain it. You are training children to think, not just regurgitate. For this reason, being exposed to "men were chimps" is not an issue; it's a springboard for discussion.

 

[ktgrok]

never mind, I used google to discover the answer to my question. wow.

[albeto.]

never mind, I used google to discover the answer to my question. wow.

 

Well???

 

What's the answer?

[Alte Veste Academy]

Fun zombie thread.

 

I want a dolphin for a great (...) grandpa.

 

Personally, I think it is insulting to apes for humans be insulted by the idea that they are relatives. Apes are awesome. Dolphins too, of course. Lately I like most animals better than humans though. LOL I would LOVE it if the science said we were related to cats. That would explain a lot around here, especially about DD. 

[Syllieann]

Personally, I think it is insulting to apes for humans be insulted by the idea that they are relatives. Apes are awesome. Dolphins too, of course. Lately I like most animals better than humans though. LOL I would LOVE it if the science said we were related to cats. That would explain a lot around here, especially about DD.

You're in luck; we are related to cats and dolphins Our most recent common ancestor is further back than our mrca with apes, but all mammals share a mrca that is more recent than, for example our mrca with fish.

[maize]

Personally, I think it is insulting to apes for humans be insulted by the idea that they are relatives. Apes are awesome. Dolphins too, of course. Lately I like most animals better than humans though. LOL I would LOVE it if the science said we were related to cats. That would explain a lot around here, especially about DD.

Cats would never admit to the relationship...

[Alte Veste Academy]

You're in luck; we are related to cats and dolphins Our most recent common ancestor is further back than our mrca with apes, but all mammals share a mrca that is more recent than, for example our mrca with fish.

 

LOL I meant it would be cool if it were commonly referred to like it is with apes. Instead of apes. (No offense to apes intended.)

 

[Bluegoat]

Of course no one can argue with what you may have heard in person, and whether people talk to you about evolving from chimps or dolphins (?), it's hardly relevant with regard to what the theory of evolution is. To suggest "not all evolutionists believe," is to imply most do, or at least it's a commonly accepted belief. That's not a true implication and should be corrected for the sake of being accurate. 

 

Just to nit-pic, and please don't take this to be a personal thing, but we are educators after all and accuracy is part of the game...

 

Evolution isn't a belief. One no more "believes in" evolution than they "believe in" gravity the theory of heliocentrism. One understands a scientific theory, or one does not. Evolution, like gravity and heliocentrism, has been long accepted by the global scientific community to be factual and accurate based on objective factors such as the mountains of data collected. 

 

One who understands the theory of evolution understands the evolution of primates, including homo sapiens.

 

It's important to understand that there are many people who "believe" in evolution without understanding it. 

 

It prevents accusing people who say "I was taught that evolution says that humans evolved from chimps" of being liars.  It is entirely possible that they were taught that.

 

And it prevents, or should prevent, hubris which believes that being "pro-science" means people are more logical or analytical or educated.  The vast majority of people do "believe" in evolution, essentially as an issue of trust, or lack of really questioning what they were taught.  Just like a lot of people who believe in YEC.

 

Personally, I think YEC is not only incredible, it is theologically insupportable.  But I don't have any illusions that the average guy on the street believes in evolution for reasons much different than the average Christian fundamentalists doesn't.  It's always about accepting what seems to be the most trustworthy paradigm that resonates with your experience - and how we experience is determined largely by our upbringing.

[albeto.]

While I understand the gist of your comment, scientific theories are reliable, natural explanations of observable phenomenon. They are not belief systems. They don't operate on belief. 

[maize]

While I understand the gist of your comment, scientific theories are reliable, natural explanations of observable phenomenon. They are not belief systems. They don't operate on belief. 

 

Granted.

 

People, however, operate on belief, and the mechanism of the belief paradigm of most who believe evolution to be true and most who do not is more similar than different.

 

Separate question from that of the validity of the different paradigms.

[maize]

And I still want to be descended from a dolphin.

 

Or a cat.

 

:D

[Bluegoat]

Granted.

 

People, however, operate on belief, and the mechanism of the belief paradigm of most who believe evolution to be true and most who do not is more similar than different.

 

Separate question from that of the validity of the different paradigms.

 

This is what I was getting at.

 

Although, actually I think it is a belief system too.  There really aren't any paradigms where we can prove the fundamental assumptions.  And there are all kinds of interesting cultural behaviors in science that directly affect the kinds of conclusions science comes to and the questions it asks, and even what facts are perceived and what observations can be made.

 

Imagining that it has some sort of objective reality apart from all these factors of human thinking, that they are simply "natural" explanations, seems terribly naive to me.  Sociologists and philosophers of science have been talking about these things since the middle of the last century.

[Bluegoat]

And I still want to be descended from a dolphin.

 

Or a cat.

 

:D

 

How about a dolphin and a cat? :ohmy:

[maize]

How about a dolphin and a cat? :ohmy:

Oh! A delfeline!

 

Perfect. I would be able to do aqua-acrobatics and purr at the same time, all while looking smugly superior and indifferent. And I would really, really like fish.

[albeto.]

This is what I was getting at.

 

Although, actually I think it is a belief system too.  There really aren't any paradigms where we can prove the fundamental assumptions.  And there are all kinds of interesting cultural behaviors in science that directly affect the kinds of conclusions science comes to and the questions it asks, and even what facts are perceived and what observations can be made.

 

Imagining that it has some sort of objective reality apart from all these factors of human thinking, that they are simply "natural" explanations, seems terribly naive to me.  Sociologists and philosophers of science have been talking about these things since the middle of the last century.

 

I don't think I quite understand what you are talking about. Evolution is a belief system based on what belief, precisely? Does it require faith of some kind? If so, in what? What beliefs/assumptions are accepted as true without supporting evidence? What beliefs/assumptions are accepted as true despite evidence to the contrary? What cultural behaviors directly affect the evidence that contributes to evolution as a viable explanation for the biodiversity observed? Can you be specific?

[albeto.]

Granted.

 

People, however, operate on belief, and the mechanism of the belief paradigm of most who believe evolution to be true and most who do not is more similar than different.

 

Separate question from that of the validity of the different paradigms.

 

People also operate on rational arguments and logical considerations. We have the ability to divorce emotion from event, and fact from opinion. We are complex thinkers with the ability to calmly and carefully examine a variety of details. People who believe their airplanes will sustain flight do so because they recognize there are certain facts that support this very reality. And yet, one doesn't suggest aviation is a belief system. 

 

Perhaps I don't understand what you're saying, either. 

[mommaduck]

Of course no one can argue with what you may have heard in person, and whether people talk to you about evolving from chimps or dolphins (?), it's hardly relevant with regard to what the theory of evolution is. To suggest "not all evolutionists believe," is to imply most do, or at least it's a commonly accepted belief. That's not a true implication and should be corrected for the sake of being accurate. 

 

Just to nit-pic, and please don't take this to be a personal thing, but we are educators after all and accuracy is part of the game...

 

Evolution isn't a belief. One no more "believes in" evolution than they "believe in" gravity the theory of heliocentrism. One understands a scientific theory, or one does not. Evolution, like gravity and heliocentrism, has been long accepted by the global scientific community to be factual and accurate based on objective factors such as the mountains of data collected. 

 

One who understands the theory of evolution understands the evolution of primates, including homo sapiens.

Albeto, it's already a fact on here that you enjoy nit picking everything when it comes to faith or religion. Even when people aren't at odds with you. What is odd is that you can't even let the horse be led to water. You just want to shoot the horse and dump it in the water.

[mommaduck]

Regarding the bolded, NO evolutionists believe man came from chimps. We believe chimps and man both evolved, separately, from a common ancestor way way way back. NOT that people came from monkeys or chimps. 

Christians that believe in evolution simply believe that at some point that evolution resulted in something that was special, human, and made in the image of God. It's just the how God made it part that is different.

 

Evolutionist, as in a person that holds to evolution. Unfortunately, there ARE public school teachers that teach "from chimps" with no clearer distinction. What you end up with? People that believe in evolution and that that means that we come "from chimps", not from a common ancestor. It is important to clarify and explain those people to others that hold those as an example of most that hold evolution. THAT was my point. Pat yourself on the back for being more precise with your student. I am also with mine...that is why I mention that those people DO exist.

[albeto.]

Albeto, it's already a fact on here that you enjoy nit picking everything when it comes to faith or religion. Even when people aren't at odds with you. What is odd is that you can't even let the horse be led to water. You just want to shoot the horse and dump it in the water.

 

Thank you for the character assessment. When someone suggests the theory of evolution is predicated on a belief of some sort, that is quite at odds with conventional knowledge, and at odds with what I'm saying. As a community that functions to support educators, do you think accuracy is important? Do you think recognizing the difference between fact and opinion is an important skill academically? Or are facts relative, in your opinion?

[mommaduck]

Fact: there are those that believe that humans came from chimps. They believe that because they are told "it's fact". No knowledge, no understanding why, no clarity...purely belief in another person's words.

 

Yes, facts are important. Unfortunately, there are even those that believe in evolution that don't know basic facts. I guess we're just supposed to pretend that those people don't exist?

[albeto.]

Fact: there are those that believe that humans came from chimps. They believe that because they are told "it's fact". No knowledge, no understanding why, no clarity...purely belief in another person's words.

 

Yes, facts are important. Unfortunately, there are even those that believe in evolution that don't know basic facts. I guess we're just supposed to pretend that those people don't exist?

 

My point is that evolution is not a belief system. One either understands the theory or does not (or, like you say, understands some of it but also misunderstands some of it). This is not in opposition to what you are suggesting other than the concept that evolution is something one believes in. I think that phraseology is worth calling out. I think it's as worthy of calling out and correcting as the concept of there being a "debate" about evolution. Things that are not true, things that are confusing to the issue, ought to be eliminated from the Great Conversation. Is it so odd that an educator would call out inaccurate ideas and concepts in a conversation among educators? This happens all the time across all kinds of subjects and beliefs. It's no different here, even if you are personally tired of hearing it. Others will be considering this for the first time.

[mommaduck]

be·lieve

bəˈlēv/

verb

 

1. 1.

   accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

   "the superintendent believed Lancaster's story"

   synonyms: be convinced by, trust, have confidence in, consider honest, consider truthful More

    
2. hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose.

   "I believe we've already met"

   synonyms: think, be of the opinion that, have an idea that, imagine, suspect,suppose, assume, presume, take it, conjecture, surmise, conclude,deduce, understand, be given to understand, gather, fancy, guess,dare say; More

    

    

   I'm going by the first definition. Someone accepting something as true or factual.

 

[EmseB]

My point is that evolution is not a belief system. One either understands the theory or does not (or, like you say, understands some of it but also misunderstands some of it). This is not in opposition to what you are suggesting other than the concept that evolution is something one believes in. I think that phraseology is worth calling out. I think it's as worthy of calling out and correcting as the concept of there being a "debate" about evolution. Things that are not true, things that are confusing to the issue, ought to be eliminated from the Great Conversation. Is it so odd that an educator would call out inaccurate ideas and concepts in a conversation among educators? This happens all the time across all kinds of subjects and beliefs. It's no different here, even if you are personally tired of hearing it. Others will be considering this for the first time.

 

Except that you're conflating two separate things.  You are reacting to something people aren't saying.

 

Even if someone acknowledges there is no debate, there are people who believe erroneous things about facts that are otherwise known to be true.  There are people who simply believe facts to be true because they have been told to do so.  There are people who believe things (even factual things) to be true without understanding them and usually this results in people imparting their incorrect and illogical assumptions about those things.  There are many facts that I believe to be true without actually knowing (via, say, the scientific method or other research) for myself if they are or not.  And if I tried to explain those facts to others I may well give bad information about said facts.  That doesn't mean there is a reasonable debate about those facts being true, but that doesn't preclude me believing them to be true without firsthand knowledge.  It also doesn't mean that I'm using the word believe or belief incorrectly.  It doesn't mean I'm trying to say that those facts are or are not true based on my beliefs.

[chiguirre]

Fact: there are those that believe that humans came from chimps. They believe that because they are told "it's fact". No knowledge, no understanding why, no clarity...purely belief in another person's words.

 

Yes, facts are important. Unfortunately, there are even those that believe in evolution that don't know basic facts. I guess we're just supposed to pretend that those people don't exist?

So, your argument is that there are people who can't be bothered to read their high school biology (okay, their middle school life science) textbook and "believe" what they think their teacher was droning on about?

 

Of course there are people who just don't care and can't be bothered to learn even the basics. That's not limited to biology. Anyone who's been through K-12 institutional education in the US has plenty of personal experience to draw on about intellectual apathy.

[albeto.]

 

be·lieve

 

 

I'm refuting the context of evolution being promoted as a belief system, in which the phrase, "believe in evolution" is often presented. While I understand you don't promote this here and now, the phrase often does promote just this idea in the context of education, and certainly in the context of this thread where someone is afraid to expose her children to facts lest they upset the delicate balance of faith and trust, believing these facts are no more than erroneous beliefs. 

 

Look, I don't mean to pick on you, and I said so in my original reply to you. I'm picking on the concept. I'm picking on the words because words have meaning. I'm picking on the belief that facts and opinions are interchangeable when it comes to matters of superstition and religious beliefs. I'm picking on the idea that it doesn't matter of one [more] person teaches her children that evolution is an erroneous belief system. I'm picking on these things because I think they reveal a kind of educational apathy, and I think in the long run, it matters what passes for education. It matters for the individual, the community, the larger society, and the global community ultimately. 

[Wheres Toto]

Why is anyone who accepts evolution called an evolutionist, instead of that title only going to those scientists who understand it?

 

I accept the tenets of astronomy but I wouldn't call myself an astronomer, I like looking at rocks and collecting them but I wouldn't call myself a geologists.  Those titles are usually reserved for those who have spent time in a detailed study of the field and have earned a degree.  Dh is a chemist.  I have studied chemistry but I am not a chemist.

 

Just a bit of rambling about something the debate over what "evolutionists" believe made me think about.

[mommaduck]

Why is anyone who accepts evolution called an evolutionist, instead of that title only going to those scientists who understand it?

 

 

 

As opposed to someone accepting creationism being called a creationist, yes. I've heard of scientists called anthropologists, chemists, etc. I've not known one to receive a job title of evolutionist.

[albeto.]

Except that you're conflating two separate things.  You are reacting to something people aren't saying.

 

Even if someone acknowledges there is no debate, there are people who believe erroneous things about facts that are otherwise known to be true.  There are people who simply believe facts to be true because they have been told to do so.  There are people who believe things (even factual things) to be true without understanding them and usually this results in people imparting their incorrect and illogical assumptions about those things.  

 

I agree with this. I think it's more accurate to convey the idea that people who believe humans evolved from chimps (or dolphins!) misunderstand the theory of evolution, even if they accept the theory as fact overall. I think it's important to clarify that people who understand the theory of evolution do not promote such erroneous ideas. I'm calling out the phrase for reasons I just shared in my last post. 

[albeto.]

Why is anyone who accepts evolution called an evolutionist, instead of that title only going to those scientists who understand it?

 

I accept the tenets of astronomy but I wouldn't call myself an astronomer, I like looking at rocks and collecting them but I wouldn't call myself a geologists.  Those titles are usually reserved for those who have spent time in a detailed study of the field and have earned a degree.  Dh is a chemist.  I have studied chemistry but I am not a chemist.

 

Just a bit of rambling about something the debate over what "evolutionists" believe made me think about.

 

I think it's a term promoted by advocates of YEC to falsely support the idea that evolution is a belief system. The term "Darwinists" is used for the same reason, as a kind of juxtaposition from "Christian" - one who follows Christ - "Darwinists" supposedly follow Darwin? Read the Origin of Species as a holy text? Prostrate themselves five times a day in the direction of the Galapagos? It's silly, but it's effective. A whole generation of Americans are raised to consider evolution as a belief system based on the rants of a single man [according to some, a man who wanted nothing more than to find a way to rationalize sin without feeling guilty]. 

[KSinNS]

Fun Zombie thread. 

 

I, too, would love to be descended from a dolphin. 

 

I'm a Christian who does not believe that evolutionary theory or the big bang theory contradicts Genesis, but I actually didn't love the Usborne prehistory book. I have a degree in Anthropology, and the book makes some unscientific statements/assumptions about prehistorical/hunting and gathering/non-literate societies.

 

There's a temptation to see history as a march of progress across the world, and that progress follows knowledge. That's probably not a fair assumption, and certainly is not consistent with modern anthropology. For example, people don't discover farming and think it's a great idea. Certainly all hunters and gatherers (as far as we know) have a clear idea about seeds and how they work. They don't settle down and farm, not because they don't know how, but because it's not in their interests to. Most hunting and gathering societies eventually do farm (outside of marginal environments like the arctic, deserts, or jungles) because their populations get larger than the land can support, so they adapt with technology (farming). The down-side of farming is that the people work a lot harder, live shorter lives, and have more kids but higher infant mortality over the hunters and gatherers. Also, there's a bunch of outdated stuff in the book about how the native Americans came to the Americas on a land bridge. There are a bunch of theories about that (mostly involving boats) but the dating of the earliest South American settlements are a bit old for them to have made it on the land-bridge. Anyway, my kids got sick of me going on and on about hunters and gatherers, so we moved on :-}. 

[ktgrok]

Evolutionist, as in a person that holds to evolution. Unfortunately, there ARE public school teachers that teach "from chimps" with no clearer distinction. What you end up with? People that believe in evolution and that that means that we come "from chimps", not from a common ancestor. It is important to clarify and explain those people to others that hold those as an example of most that hold evolution. THAT was my point. Pat yourself on the back for being more precise with your student. I am also with mine...that is why I mention that those people DO exist.

 

But wouldn't there be a textbook?? I can't imagine a textbook would say "from chimps" in it. 

[3rugrats]

But wouldn't there be a textbook?? I can't imagine a textbook would say "from chimps" in it. 

I have an Usborne Peoples of the World book which states under an illustration of monkeys in a tree, "These monkey-like creatures lived about 14 million years ago and are the ancestors of people. There were no people on the Earth then. Many millions of years ago, our ancestors were monkey-like creatures living in trees. Like all other animals people have slowly developed and changed to become as they are today."

 

If I want to teach my children what Evolutionists believe, would I tell them this is incorrect then? As someone who does not understand all the particulars of evolution, it sounds to me like this is teaching that people evolved from monkeys/apes/chimps.... not that we have a common ancestor from which we both independently evolved.

[ktgrok]

I have an Usborne Peoples of the World book which states under an illustration of monkeys in a tree, "These monkey-like creatures lived about 14 million years ago and are the ancestors of people. There were no people on the Earth then. Many millions of years ago, our ancestors were monkey-like creatures living in trees. Like all other animals people have slowly developed and changed to become as they are today."

 

If I want to teach my children what Evolutionists believe, would I tell them this is incorrect then? As someone who does not understand all the particulars of evolution, it sounds to me like this is teaching that people evolved from monkeys/apes/chimps.... not that we have a common ancestor from which we both independently evolved.

 

I agree that is misleading. although technically correct. We did evolve from "monkey like" creatures way way way back. So did monkeys. But the creature all primates evolved from no longer exists, it is extinct. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

[maize]

People also operate on rational arguments and logical considerations. We have the ability to divorce emotion from event, and fact from opinion. We are complex thinkers with the ability to calmly and carefully examine a variety of details. People who believe their airplanes will sustain flight do so because they recognize there are certain facts that support this very reality. And yet, one doesn't suggest aviation is a belief system. 

 

Perhaps I don't understand what you're saying, either. 

 

We have the ability to do so, but careful, logical consideration of all the facts is not actually the way most people form their opinions most of the time.

 

Person A believes that modern humans are the result of evolution acting over the span of many millennia because her school teacher told her so.

 

Person B believes that modern humans are the result of a special act of creation by God in the much more recent past because her Sunday School teacher told her so.

 

Person A and Person B each have beliefs about the origins of modern human derived in a very similar manner; while Person A's belief may be more scientifically valid, the process by which Person A came to hold that belief is no more scientifically valid than the process by which Person B came to hold her belief: both simply accepted what they were told by a person whose authoritative pronouncement they trusted.

[mommaduck]

We have the ability to do so, but careful, logical consideration of all the facts is not actually the way most people form their opinions most of the time.

 

Person A believes that modern humans are the result of evolution acting over the span of many millennia because her school teacher told her so.

 

Person B believes that modern humans are the result of a special act of creation by God in the much more recent past because her Sunday School teacher told her so.

 

Person A and Person B each have beliefs about the origins of modern human derived in a very similar manner; while Person A's belief may be more scientifically valid, the process by which Person A came to hold that belief is no more scientifically valid than the process by which Person B came to hold her belief: both simply accepted what they were told by a person whose authoritative pronouncement they trusted.

 

THIS.

[mommaduck]

But wouldn't there be a textbook?? I can't imagine a textbook would say "from chimps" in it. 

 

Katie, unfortunately, no, not all schools use textbooks. In fact, not all schools even touch on evolution. I never was taught any of it in any elementary school I went to and my public junior high and highschool avoided the topic. Even the text we had just briefly mentioned it as a concept, but with no clear explanation of the evolution of humans. That chapter was entirely skipped in class (I'm a nerd; I actually read it), no discussion, etc. Our biology and chem/physics teachers were both YEC and one of them attended the same church I did. My SIL attended in the next district over. Her teacher told them the outer parts of their ears and nose were useless and would eventually disappear from the human race :p SIL was so gullible that she even believed my BIL that a doctor would have to perform surgery on her nipples in order for her to nurse her baby (we were each pregnant with our first and BIL knew she wouldn't want surgery; he used that to try to scare her out of breastfeeding. I grabbed a pump and hauled her into the bedroom. She came out and chewed him up one end and down the other. I felt bad that ANYONE was THAT gullible and uninformed...point being, there are people that really do rely on others for ALL information and take anything they are told as gospel).

 

 

Albeto, my issue is that you seem to want to beat people over the head as much as a fundamentalist wants to beat people over the head with the KJV (O!). I've come a long way to being open to more than what I was instructed I was to believe. It definitely did NOT happen by others mocking my faith or dismissing even the babysteps I took. I'm not sure I can call myself YEC anymore, but I'm not where I can state with preciseness where I stand on the various particulars of evolution, etc. I'm still working it out, but firmly hold that God did it and Science and Faith aren't at odds with eachother camp. My oldest son (graduated and soon to college) and I discuss evolution and various scientific studies and theories ALL. THE. FREAKING. TIME. He's a STEM kid. He's, admittedly, beyond me. I taught him to learn. I pushed him. I was open to all views, presentations of scientific evidence and theories in comparison to what I'd been taught. He's firmly in the God used evolution, because Science and Faith aren't at odds. PEOPLE at odds want to use them to bang their drums, but we don't just don't carry around that kind of baggage anymore. In the meantime, I'm enjoying what I've learned, discussions, and hearing my son's thoughts and what he can now teach me. Delivery is as important as preciseness. 

[albeto.]

We have the ability to do so, but careful, logical consideration of all the facts is not actually the way most people form their opinions most of the time.

 

This is irrelevant to the question about whether or not evolution is a belief system. 

 

Person A believes that modern humans are the result of evolution acting over the span of many millennia because her school teacher told her so.

 

Person B believes that modern humans are the result of a special act of creation by God in the much more recent past because her Sunday School teacher told her so.

 

Person A and Person B each have beliefs about the origins of modern human derived in a very similar manner; while Person A's belief may be more scientifically valid, the process by which Person A came to hold that belief is no more scientifically valid than the process by which Person B came to hold her belief: both simply accepted what they were told by a person whose authoritative pronouncement they trusted.

 

I disagree. Person A is evolution in the context of the field of science in general. This field includes the scientific method which contains such variables as observation, experimentation, collection of data, analysis of results, review with peers, rinse, repeat. Person B is taught to trust certain people, trust certain texts, trust certain feelings as indicative of reality. These are two diametrically opposing methods by which knowledge is understood to be gleaned. One is founded in fact, the other in the belief that certain claims are true. The theory of evolution falls in the first category, not the second. I understand that people misunderstand evolution, but that doesn't mean the theory itself is predicated on belief. That educators are misrepresenting the theory is indicative of a problem of ignorance (lack of pertinent knowledge), and should be called out when it happens (*ahem*). But to pretend that evolution is be a belief system because some people think it's a belief system is as silly as pretending the moon landing is a matter of belief because some people believe it was faked. 

[maize]

This is irrelevant to the question about whether or not evolution is a belief system. 

 

 

I disagree. Person A is evolution in the context of the field of science in general. This field includes the scientific method which contains such variables as observation, experimentation, collection of data, analysis of results, review with peers, rinse, repeat. Person B is taught to trust certain people, trust certain texts, trust certain feelings as indicative of reality. These are two diametrically opposing methods by which knowledge is understood to be gleaned. One is founded in fact, the other in the belief that certain claims are true. The theory of evolution falls in the first category, not the second. I understand that people misunderstand evolution, but that doesn't mean the theory itself is predicated on belief. That educators are misrepresenting the theory is indicative of a problem of ignorance (lack of pertinent knowledge), and should be called out when it happens (*ahem*). But to pretend that evolution is be a belief system because some people think it's a belief system is as silly as pretending the moon landing is a matter of belief because some people believe it was faked. 

 

Did I say the theory of evolution is predicated on belief?

[Alte Veste Academy]

Did I say the theory of evolution is predicated on belief?

No.

[albeto.]

Albeto, my issue is that you seem to want to beat people over the head as much as a fundamentalist wants to beat people over the head with the KJV (O!).

 

The difference being one is a matter of fact, and one is a matter of belief. Why do you resist accuracy in the context of education? 

 

I've come a long way to being open to more than what I was instructed I was to believe. It definitely did NOT happen by others mocking my faith or dismissing even the babysteps I took.

 

Are you suggesting pointing out inaccuracies with regard to factual concepts is a form of mockery? 

 

With regard to dismissing one's journey, or even one's beliefs, science is a field of study - it does not have intent to support or dismiss anyone. An individual's personal beliefs or experiences are irrelevant to what science discovers. 

 

I'm not sure I can call myself YEC anymore, but I'm not where I can state with preciseness where I stand on the various particulars of evolution, etc. I'm still working it out, but firmly hold that God did it and Science and Faith aren't at odds with eachother camp. My oldest son (graduated and soon to college) and I discuss evolution and various scientific studies and theories ALL. THE. FREAKING. TIME. He's a STEM kid. He's, admittedly, beyond me. I taught him to learn. I pushed him. I was open to all views, presentations of scientific evidence and theories in comparison to what I'd been taught. He's firmly in the God used evolution, because Science and Faith aren't at odds. PEOPLE at odds want to use them to bang their drums, but we don't just don't carry around that kind of baggage anymore. In the meantime, I'm enjoying what I've learned, discussions, and hearing my son's thoughts and what he can now teach me. Delivery is as important as preciseness. 

 

I'm talking about evolution being based in fact, not belief. I want to leave it at that, but you don't. Somehow my character has to be dragged into the discussion. I fail to see the relevance. Facts are unmoved by delivery, desire, or religious dogma, and my character has no more influence on whether or not evolution is a reliable and accurate theory that explains biodiversity than yours, Darwin's, Dawkin's, or the mailman's.