Jump to content

Menu

Speaking of resources that refute evolution...


Kathryn
 Share

Recommended Posts

A Facebook friend just posted a link to an article:"Blue Ridge Christian Academy: The School That Gave Fourth Graders the Creationism Test Heard Around the Internet" http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/04/30/blue-ridge-christian-academy-the-school-that-gave-fourth-graders-the-creationism-test-heard-around-the-internet/

 

That has a link on it to an article titled "Why Are Christian Homeschooling Parents Pushing to Expose Their Children to Evolution?" http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/04/30/why-are-christian-homeschooling-parents-pushing-to-expose-their-children-to-evolution/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A Facebook friend just posted a link to an article:"Blue Ridge Christian Academy: The School That Gave Fourth Graders the Creationism Test Heard Around the Internet" http://www.patheos.c...d-the-internet/

 

That has a link on it to an article titled "Why Are Christian Homeschooling Parents Pushing to Expose Their Children to Evolution?" http://www.patheos.c...n-to-evolution/

 

 

I wish them luck (well, not really). In this day and age, trying to convince kids the earth is 6000 years old and evolution is a joke has got to be a difficult task. It's pretty clear that kids who grow up with this ideology eventually become exposed to the reality of nature, and start questioning their entire religious framework. There are many hold-outs, but fewer and fewer with each generation. It's a belief system that won't last in the long run any more than the belief in a flat earth or earth-centric solar system could be maintained for more than a few generations after the information became widely available. Today we have the internet spreading information at the speed of electricity. I predict in the not too distant future there will only be pockets of hold-outs, not unlike FLDS, who basically sequester themselves from the rest of society.

 

In the meantime, I think we as a society need to start having some serious discussions about what is permissible as education for our youth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In the meantime, I think we as a society need to start having some serious discussions about what is permissible as education for our youth.

 

 

Skimming the comments, this is exactly where a lot of people's brains go when they find out that this goes on in private and home schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In the meantime, I think we as a society need to start having some serious discussions about what is permissible as education for our youth.

 

 

Are you a homeschooler? I would like to think that most homeschoolers welcome the freedom to teach their children without the fear of government opression

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Are you a homeschooler? I would like to think that most homeschoolers welcome the freedom to teach their children without the fear of government opression

 

 

Scientific illiteracy, or the lack thereof, affects our society as a whole. I would no sooner support a private school that advocated a refusal to teach children to read and write because the letters are Roman and therefore pagan in origin, or a refusal to teach children to write math because numerals are Arabic and therefore Islamic. Education isn't oppression, it's liberation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are Young Earth so I do resent some of these comments. But anyway being a Science major I do believe in presenting my kids with different views so we also read books on Evolution. Most member at our church are Old Earth Creationist or Intelligent Design so we are in the minority.

 

My children are allowed to watch documentaries and most of these present Evolution as fact. Evolution is not fact as it cannot be proven without fail. I much more prefer the way I was taught at school in Europe. The Creationist Theory and the Evolution Theory.

 

Ok, we spent a lot more time looking into Evolution but at least they tried to present both sides. I grew up catholic and most were lined up with an Old Earth view so creation was not a problem.

 

I am still trying to wrap my head around Old Earth and I am finding it hard to find materials on it. We have decided to teach our children our religion and our beliefs and views but we try to expose them to other views and then we discuss it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also like to add that as an Homeschooler I appreciate the freedom we have to teach our children what we belive. I find a lots of these comments offensive and unfair to people with a differant view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientific illiteracy, or the lack thereof, affects our society as a whole. I would no sooner support a private school that advocated a refusal to teach children to read and write because the letters are Roman and therefore pagan in origin, or a refusal to teach children to write math because numerals are Arabic and therefore Islamic. Education isn't oppression, it's liberation.

 

Are you a homeschooler?

 

Sorry to offend with the word "oppression" - when the government steps in to dictate what and how I teach my children the origin of life, I personally will consider it oppression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you a homeschooler?

 

Sorry to offend with the word "oppression" - when the government steps in to dictate what and how I teach my children the origin of life, I personally will consider it oppression.

 

Your use of the word "oppression" wasn't offensive to me in the least. :)

 

I would not advocate the government stepping in and dictating what and how you teach your children about the origins of life, however, I do advocate your children, and every child in the United States, to be scientifically literate, and mathematically literate, as well as the old fashioned reading and writing literate. Your religious beliefs should not be suppressed, and the government has no business suppressing it. At the same time, your child's education should not be suppressed, and schools like the one illustrated in the OP are exposing this fact to the rest of the nation in such a way as to raise some important questions. Education of children isn't only a personal matter. It affects us all, we all have a vested interest in the security and well-being of our nation to have an educated society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, believe what you want. But teaching a kid to answer "were you there?" as a legit refute to the question is not right. There are several other evolution threads right now and those threads have tons of links for both sides of the argument. To simply flat out deny, as though you place your fingers in ears and sing "la la la I can't hear you"--is where I have the problem.

 

And having a child answer "were you there?" is no different than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty clear that kids who grow up with this ideology eventually become exposed to the reality of nature, and start questioning their entire religious framework.

My husband is a good example. He grew up in a very fundamental home, and went to a fundamental Christian boarding school. All he learned was creation science until he got to college. Being an intelligent man, he looked at all of this information he hadn't been exposed to before and it really did shake his entire faith. Kind of a "if they were full of BS on this part, what else were they wrong about??" type of thing.

Twenty years later, he's finally finding his way back to God.

 

I don't mind if people want to teach creation science, or believe creation science, but we need to be very careful NOT to tie it to whether one is a "good" Christian or not. Because if people start to look at the evidence and decide to go a different direction on this topic, they need to know that it's fine to do so! That salvation has very little do with your opinion on the origins of the universe or life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Your use of the word "oppression" wasn't offensive to me in the least. :)

 

I would not advocate the government stepping in and dictating what and how you teach your children about the origins of life, however, I do advocate your children, and every child in the United States, to be scientifically literate, and mathematically literate, as well as the old fashioned reading and writing literate. Your religious beliefs should not be suppressed, and the government has no business suppressing it. At the same time, your child's education should not be suppressed, and schools like the one illustrated in the OP are exposing this fact to the rest of the nation in such a way as to raise some important questions. Education of children isn't only a personal matter. It affects us all, we all have a vested interest in the security and well-being of our nation to have an educated society.

 

Are you a homeschooler? Still curious :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the question of a scientifically literate populace, I agree.

For that matter, I still think people can believe whatever they want, so long as they have a genuine working knowledge of the information in question. (The recent discussion of "macro" vs. "micro" evolution being a good example. There is no such differentiation when speaking scienfically)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you a homeschooler? Still curious :)

 

In what way does that affect the legitimacy of my comments? Are you arguing that only homeschoolers are capable of making an informed decision about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the same time, your child's education should not be suppressed, and schools like the one illustrated in the OP are exposing this fact to the rest of the nation in such a way as to raise some important questions. Education of children isn't only a personal matter. It affects us all, we all have a vested interest in the security and well-being of our nation to have an educated society.

 

 

I know a lot of adults that are highly educated and are YEC. They are functioning as nurses, doctors, accountants, police officers, school teachers, etc, so I don't think your "for sake of society" argument is valid. The article was written by an atheist, so I don't think his opinion is any more unbiased than a christian school administrator. I also don't think that creationism is a make it or break it idea when it comes to a person's education.

JMO,

Joy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was asking in my first post because It gives me a better idea of who I'm talking to. Albeto never answered my question. As I said, most homeschoolers I've come into contact are not too fond of more regulation in home education. I'm not excluding anyone. Just asking my first question again. Is that not ok?

 

Eta Albeto instead of "they"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a homeschooler and I'm fine with more regulation.

I want to be sure everyone is getting a decent education.

How much regulation gets to be the question...

 

So...can we move on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My husband is a good example.

 

Sure, lots of people exposed to only one religious belief maintain that belief their whole lives (or come back to it like your husband did). That's pretty well established, I'm sure we'd all agree. My point was that children who are exposed to a particular religious belief (ie, creationism), increasingly leave that belief system as they mature and engage in the greater world. I think with the internet and the ability to share information instantaneously and globally, this trend is going to increase substantially faster than it did when religious beliefs such as a flat earth or earth-centric solar system were challenged and ultimately abandoned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was asking in my first post because It gives me a better idea of who I'm talking to.

 

 

Again, what difference does that make with regards to the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of my comments?

 

Would it be helpful to know what color my hair is? My astrological sign? How many stretch marks I have? Spy Car found out not too long ago I have a uterus. Blew his ever-lovin' mind. He still engaged in a conversation according to the contents of the comments, not the state of otherwise superficial attributes. I don't mean to be snarky here and I apologize if it comes across that way, but I get the impression you're wondering if I'm "qualified" in some way to offer an opinion. Your insistence in my answering your question solidifies this impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Again, what difference does that make with regards to the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of my comments?

 

Would it be helpful to know what color my hair is? My astrological sign? How many stretch marks I have? Spy Car found out not too long ago I have a uterus. Blew his ever-lovin' mind. He still engaged in a conversation according to the contents of the comments, not the state of otherwise superficial attributes. I don't mean to be snarky here and I apologize if it comes across that way, but I get the impression you're wondering if I'm "qualified" in some way to offer an opinion. Your insistence in my answering your question solidifies this impression.

 

 

I almost answered for you a while back before you came back since I know you from a few other boards, but, like you, I decided it wasn't really relevant to the conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Again, what difference does that make with regards to the legitimacy (or illegitimacy) of my comments?

 

Would it be helpful to know what color my hair is? My astrological sign? How many stretch marks I have? Spy Car found out not too long ago I have a uterus. Blew his ever-lovin' mind. He still engaged in a conversation according to the contents of the comments, not the state of otherwise superficial attributes. I don't mean to be snarky here and I apologize if it comes across that way, but I get the impression you're wondering if I'm "qualified" in some way to offer an opinion. Your insistence in my answering your question solidifies this impression.

 

 

I'm sorry that my question is obviously too personal. I simply wanted to know where you were coming from with the statement

" I think we as a society need to start having some serious discussions about what is permissible as education for our youth. "

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also don't think that creationism is a make it or break it idea when it comes to a person's education.

 

 

Neither is knowledge of Algebra, Classics, History, Latin, etc. Most people make do with some knowledge of reading, writing and arithmetic. Education does however have a role in shaping society as a whole. IMO, an uneducated populace which can be easily duped, misinformed and misled is a danger to itself and threat to the very democratic institutions that it should work to protect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a refusal to teach children to write math because numerals are Arabic and therefore Islamic.

 

Actually the Arabs got them from India, so they're more likely Hindu. Arabs provided the international exposure. As they did with sugar.

 

I think you'll find a fair number of people who belive education is not liberating but corrupting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, lots of people exposed to only one religious belief maintain that belief their whole lives (or come back to it like your husband did). That's pretty well established, I'm sure we'd all agree. My point was that children who are exposed to a particular religious belief (ie, creationism), increasingly leave that belief system as they mature and engage in the greater world. I think with the internet and the ability to share information instantaneously and globally, this trend is going to increase substantially faster than it did when religious beliefs such as a flat earth or earth-centric solar system were challenged and ultimately abandoned.

 

Um, yeah. I was agreeing. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a lot of adults that are highly educated and are YEC. They are functioning as nurses, doctors, accountants, police officers, school teachers, etc, so I don't think your "for sake of society" argument is valid. The article was written by an atheist, so I don't think his opinion is any more unbiased than a christian school administrator. I also don't think that creationism is a make it or break it idea when it comes to a person's education.

JMO,

Joy

 

 

There are some enormously educated people who profess a belief in YEC. That's a bit of a problem in my opinion, because that education could have been more productive and advantageous to us as a whole nation. Doctors and nurses and accountants and police officers and teachers notwithstanding, knowing how the natural world works and being able to make logical, rational predictions, is important. Who knows what more our country could accomplish if instead of fighting in school districts to finally finish the process John Scopes started in 1925 (!), namely, to keep educational information in the educational arena (schools), we could have developed ways to help those on the periphery of education gain more access. Surely we could have developed more advanced medical technology had we had the funding to provide the necessary tools and personnel. Surely we could have developed better ecologically responsible technology had we put our resources into that. I live in a country in which almost half the adults believe Jesus is coming back in their lifetime. That's alarming to me to think of all the policies being ignored, overlooked, or rejected for my children and my children's children, simply because people who vote, think our resources are better spent conserving the definition of marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry that my question is obviously too personal. I simply wanted to know where you were coming from with the statement

" I think we as a society need to start having some serious discussions about what is permissible as education for our youth. "

 

 

Very simply, I'm coming from the point of view that suggests that I think we as a society need to start having some serious discussions about what is permissible as education for our youth.

 

I'm not a homeschooler, I've never homeschooled. I have no children. How would you respond?

 

I've a number of children and have homeschooled a number of years. How would you respond?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither is knowledge of Algebra, Classics, History, Latin, etc. Most people make do with some knowledge of reading, writing and arithmetic. Education does however have a role in shaping society as a whole. IMO, an uneducated populace which can be easily duped, misinformed and misled is a danger to itself and threat to the very democratic institutions that it should work to protect.

 

 

That was a huge leap from my original statement. I was not advocating an uneducated society. Just saying that a person can be a YEC and still be highly educated and not be a danger to society.

Joy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a homeschooler and I'm fine with more regulation.

I want to be sure everyone is getting a decent education.

How much regulation gets to be the question...

 

So...can we move on?

 

 

Ditto. I'm very much in favor of more regulation. Every child receiving a solid and thorough education is the foundation of a functional democracy AND a functional economy. Not every homeschooler is anti-government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the Arabs got them from India, so they're more likely Hindu. Arabs provided the international exposure. As they did with sugar.

 

Did not know that!

 

I think you'll find a fair number of people who belive education is not liberating but corrupting.

 

 

From a religious standpoint, it's true, but we live in a nation in which a religious standpoint is not allowed to guide public policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your use of the word "oppression" wasn't offensive to me in the least. :)

 

I would not advocate the government stepping in and dictating what and how you teach your children about the origins of life, however, I do advocate your children, and every child in the United States, to be scientifically literate, and mathematically literate, as well as the old fashioned reading and writing literate. Your religious beliefs should not be suppressed, and the government has no business suppressing it. At the same time, your child's education should not be suppressed, and schools like the one illustrated in the OP are exposing this fact to the rest of the nation in such a way as to raise some important questions. Education of children isn't only a personal matter. It affects us all, we all have a vested interest in the security and well-being of our nation to have an educated society.

 

I'm an old earth Catholic living in Bob Jones land... I am someone who cannot even fathom the logic behind the young earth view. BJU (and their high school, middle school, elementary school, and child care facilities) are literally 2 minutes down the road from me. I would say that the majority of those I come into contact with on a daily basis are young earthers who were educated as such. In fact, my physician, several of my children's physicians, eye doctors, teachers, etc were educated through BJU - an institute that is decidedly, unapologetically young earth. I'm not sure I understand (and I am sincerely curious; not just being snarky, lol) why or how it affects society as a whole how a person feels about the origin of life or the earth's beginnings. These are people who hold a view contrary to your own, but are still very much contributing to the good of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are some enormously educated people who profess a belief in YEC. That's a bit of a problem in my opinion, because that education could have been more productive and advantageous to us as a whole nation. Doctors and nurses and accountants and police officers and teachers notwithstanding, knowing how the natural world works and being able to make logical, rational predictions, is important. Who knows what more our country could accomplish if instead of fighting in school districts to finally finish the process John Scopes started in 1925 (!), namely, to keep educational information in the educational arena (schools), we could have developed ways to help those on the periphery of education gain more access. Surely we could have developed more advanced medical technology had we had the funding to provide the necessary tools and personnel. Surely we could have developed better ecologically responsible technology had we put our resources into that. I live in a country in which almost half the adults believe Jesus is coming back in their lifetime. That's alarming to me to think of all the policies being ignored, overlooked, or rejected for my children and my children's children, simply because people who vote, think our resources are better spent conserving the definition of marriage.

 

 

Now see, I was trying to stay on topic and not bring all the other baggage that comes into play because we are diametrically opposed in our religious beliefs. It isn't possible. I think at least 51% of people who vote lack any higher thinking ability at all. That is alarming to me, but alas they are free to vote how they please and the rest of society has to live with it. Just as I should be able to teach my kids about creationism and the rest of society will have to deal with it. I think public schools have been turning out generation after generation of adults who are barely educated and in recent years I see more and more public school graduates who can't even function in society. Yet, they still get to vote. So, while we agree on lack of education being a problem, we will never agree on the cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand (and I am sincerely curious; not just being snarky, lol) why or how it affects society as a whole how a person feels about the origin of life or the earth's beginnings. These are people who hold a view contrary to your own, but are still very much contributing to the good of society.

 

 

In my opinion, it matters not because the practitioners would do anything different (I don't think they would), but the research would be vastly different. That would give the practitioners more to work with. A medical university that discovers how to create an organ from stem cells can provide numerous doctors and surgeons with this amazingly fantastic knowledge. How many students have missed the opportunity to make wonderful discoveries because they've been spending years studying a pseudoscience?

 

I would have no more problem with a doctor believing sincerely in astrology, but I would have major misgivings if there were entire universities dedicated to teaching people how to chart the stars for the sake of taking care of heart disease. Getting a degree from a university like that is happily the choice of the adult student to make, but it is not the choice of the elementary child to be told that astrology is fact, while her scientific education is being neglected. I hope that helps. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now see, I was trying to stay on topic and not bring all the other baggage that comes into play because we are diametrically opposed in our religious beliefs. It isn't possible. I think at least 51% of people who vote lack any higher thinking ability at all. That is alarming to me, but alas they are free to vote how they please and the rest of society has to live with it. Just as I should be able to teach my kids about creationism and the rest of society will have to deal with it. I think public schools have been turning out generation after generation of adults who are barely educated and in recent years I see more and more public school graduates who can't even function in society. Yet, they still get to vote. So, while we agree on lack of education being a problem, we will never agree on the cause.

 

 

 

I'm not suggesting you or anyone shouldn't have the right to teach your children your religious beliefs, even when that includes creationism. I'm suggesting we owe it to our youth to make sure they have access to an appropriate education in general, and that includes private and home education. Neglecting science in education is no more appropriate than neglecting math or reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In my opinion, it matters not because the practitioners would do anything different (I don't think they would), but the research would be vastly different. That would give the practitioners more to work with. A medical university that discovers how to create an organ from stem cells can provide numerous doctors and surgeons with this amazingly fantastic knowledge. How many students have missed the opportunity to make wonderful discoveries because they've been spending years studying a pseudoscience?

 

I would have no more problem with a doctor believing sincerely in astrology, but I would have major misgivings if there were entire universities dedicated to teaching people how to chart the stars for the sake of taking care of heart disease. Getting a degree from a university like that is happily the choice of the adult student to make, but it is not the choice of the elementary child to be told that astrology is fact, while her scientific education is being neglected. I hope that helps. :)

 

I don't disagree with you on a personal level, regarding what an ideal education would look like. Where i disagree with you, fundamentally, is in your assertion that the government should be given the ability to decide what children should or shouldn't be taught on any level. Doing so (allowing such), would open the doors to more restrictions - and I'm sure you know that (you sound educated!).

 

I believe Scott Banister said something along the lines of... Anything that is peaceful, voluntary, and honest should be tolerated and respected, regardless of whether you agree with it. Part of price of freedom is allowing others to be free.

That pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject. Until I notice that the young earth creationist view is impacting society as a whole, and infringing upon the fundamental rights of others, I'll not presume to assert that parents and schools (schools trusted and chosen by parents) shouldn't have the right to teach that view. Regardless of where these future scientists, doctors, and teachers are educated during their young years, regardless of the origin views they hold, they are worthwhile contributing members of society. I would, however, assert that technology and discoveries are more impacted by the dismal ACADEMIC state of our country's public schools - schools that do indeed teach evolution as fact, but still manage to turn out children largely uneducated when compared to some of these same private schools you seem to believe should be regulated by the same government regulating the obviously failing public schools churning out the majority of uneducated voters and non-contributing members of society.

See what I'm getting at? Public schools, that teach evolution and various *other* things, ARE highly regulated by the government. What good has it done? The vast majority of children are educated in those schools and these same children are certainly NOT coming out better for it. What good has the regulation done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with you on a personal level, regarding what an ideal education would look like. Where i disagree with you, fundamentally, is in your assertion that the government should be given the ability to decide what children should or shouldn't be taught on any level. Doing so (allowing such), would open the doors to more restrictions - and I'm sure you know that (you sound educated!).

 

I believe Scott Banister said something along the lines of... Anything that is peaceful, voluntary, and honest should be tolerated and respected, regardless of whether you agree with it. Part of price of freedom is allowing others to be free.

That pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject. Until I notice that the young earth creationist view is impacting society as a whole, and infringing upon the fundamental rights of others, I'll not presume to assert that parents and schools (schools trusted and chosen by parents) shouldn't have the right to teach that view. Regardless of where these future scientists, doctors, and teachers are educated during their young years, regardless of the origin views they hold, they are worthwhile contributing members of society. I would, however, assert that technology and discoveries are more impacted by the dismal ACADEMIC state of our country's public schools - schools that do indeed teach evolution as fact, but still manage to turn out children largely uneducated when compared to some of these same private schools you seem to believe should be regulated by the same government regulating the obviously failing public schools churning out the majority of uneducated voters and non-contributing members of society.

See what I'm getting at? Public schools, that teach evolution and various *other* things, ARE highly regulated by the government. What good has it done? The vast majority of children are educated in those schools and these same children are certainly NOT coming out better for it. What good has the regulation done?

 

 

Like X 1000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Scientific illiteracy, or the lack thereof, affects our society as a whole. I would no sooner support a private school that advocated a refusal to teach children to read and write because the letters are Roman and therefore pagan in origin, or a refusal to teach children to write math because numerals are Arabic and therefore Islamic. Education isn't oppression, it's liberation.

 

 

I may disagree with creationists but I'll defend their right to teach it. The right of parents to teach their children creationism is the same right that allows me to teach what I wish.

 

This always seems a sort of silly argument anyway. The overwhelming majority of creationists were and are educated in public schools. There is where the true problem with scientific literacy resides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Very simply, I'm coming from the point of view that suggests that I think we as a society need to start having some serious discussions about what is permissible as education for our youth.

 

I'm not a homeschooler, I've never homeschooled. I have no children. How would you respond?

 

I've a number of children and have homeschooled a number of years. How would you respond?

 

 

I would make a mental note.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate how divisive this issue has become. There are two extremes: young-earth creationists who think being anything but damns you to hell and atheists who revere science as if it is a religion and to question it is like questioning a divine being. Both extremes are wrong, IMO. We don't know everything. It seems like the more we learn and discover, the more we realize how much we don't know. The theory of evolution has holes but science says it is the best theory we have right now. I don't think it is wise to teach creationism only but I think it is also ridiculous to use the theory of evolution to disprove the existence of God, which many scientists do. Science also has a blind spot because it assumes there is no divine. A little more humility on both sides would be refreshing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is not fact as it cannot be proven without fail. I much more prefer the way I was taught at school in Europe. The Creationist Theory and the Evolution Theory.

 

No one who knows what they are talking about refers to evolution as a fact. It is a theory. A scientific theory, as you well know if you are a science major, is

 

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.
(source: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

There is no such thing as creationist theory. Creationism is not science, it is religion. I think the creationists went really wrong when they tried to convince people that creationism is any type of science. People who weren't overly concerned with what others believed about origins became very concerned when they found that people with a religious agenda were trying to inject that agenda into science classes. Personally, I don't care what people's beliefs are about origins. I do care whether they try to thrust those beliefs on children in a poor attempt to dress them up as science. And further, I don't know why people have any vested interest in having their religious beliefs scientifically validated. To me that seems to undermine the entire idea of faith. Unless, of course, they just want to be able to say, "I told you so."

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate how divisive this issue has become. There are two extremes: young-earth creationists who think being anything but damns you to hell and atheists who revere science as if it is a religion and to question it is like questioning a divine being. Both extremes are wrong, IMO. We don't know everything. It seems like the more we learn and discover, the more we realize how much we don't know. The theory of evolution has holes but science says it is the best theory we have right now. I don't think it is wise to teach creationism only but I think it is also ridiculous to use the theory of evolution to disprove the existence of God, which many scientists do. Science also has a blind spot because it assumes there is no divine. A little more humility on both sides would be refreshing.

 

Yes, yes, yes!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little more humility on both sides would be refreshing.

 

I actually disagree with this. I think both sides should be free to assert their truths without timidity, and I think that religion and science should stop seeking concordance. To me, that is when each becomes less true to itself. Science is what it is. Religion is what it is. Let them each be what they are; let people appreciate (or not) each for what it is. Let them do what they each do best. Allow each its own realm. Religion will never be science, nor will science ever be religion. I see that as a beautiful thing.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yikes! Is that what you really want? What if the "people in power" believe differently than you about what is permissible?

 

Education isn't a matter of belief. Science isn't a field of democratic decision making. Educational policies should guided by facts and rational thinking, not religious belief, even if those policies are outside a public school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate how divisive this issue has become. There are two extremes: young-earth creationists who think being anything but damns you to hell and atheists who revere science as if it is a religion and to question it is like questioning a divine being. Both extremes are wrong, IMO. We don't know everything. It seems like the more we learn and discover, the more we realize how much we don't know. The theory of evolution has holes but science says it is the best theory we have right now. I don't think it is wise to teach creationism only but I think it is also ridiculous to use the theory of evolution to disprove the existence of God, which many scientists do. Science also has a blind spot because it assumes there is no divine. A little more humility on both sides would be refreshing.

 

I've rarely seen the extremes you mention. The creationists here generally don't seem to think you're going to hell if you don't believe in it and many of the people supporting evolution ARE Christians.

 

I also don't think there's a nice medium that, if we can each give a little, we'll get too. We can't occupy the same ground because science and faith are different territories. Some of us quite comfortably straddle both but you can't blur the lines and fudge a bit to make them work nicely with each other on specific issues. I've also never heard of a scientist trying to disprove God with science. Science can't address a supernatural and infallible idea. Period. Any scientist who claims it can got his degree out of a Cracker Jack box. A scientist CAN say there's no evidence to support God and so they've chosen not to believe in God but that's a very different matter.

 

What we can do is discuss the matter with a mind to helping the other party understand our perspective without the expectation that they'll agree with us. We can also agree to disagree. Both require the humility you'd like to see. :) But claiming there's some meeting place where both parties can admit they got it a little wrong is arguing to moderation and a fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I actually disagree with this. I think both sides should be free to assert their truths without timidity, and I think that religion and science should stop seeking concordance. To me, that is when each becomes less true to itself. Science is what it is. Religion is what it is. Let them each be what they are; let people appreciate (or not) each for what it is. Let them do what they each do best. Allow each its own realm. Religion will never be science, nor will science ever be religion. I see that as a beautiful thing.

 

Tara

 

Yup. The two aren't even asking the same questions. Stephen Jay Gould had some good thoughts on this. Ticks the New Atheists off but he has some good thoughts. :D

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...