Speaking of resources that refute evolution...

[PachiSusan]

 

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.

 

Correct - but when there is an overseer who decides what should and should not be taught - that's a problem.

[Cricket]

 

 

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

 

My problem with this that I believe there is Truth. I believe God created the universe but I can't explain how. If He did create the universe, then He used some sort of process. That process would be a historical fact. In other words, Truth won't contradict itself. Whether or not we can ever figure out that process is a different question. But I don't believe God is a God of chaos.

 

[albeto]

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!).

 

The government (representing us), already decides what children should or shouldn't be taught. They/we have decided that teaching literacy is so important, that every child in the United States has a fundamental right to be taught this, and other subjects, free from personal charge. Why not determine that each American student has the right to a standard of education that does not neglect certain basic information regardless of where the student learns? We have already determined that each child has the right to a certain standard of health and welfare (with notable exceptions I take issue with), so we already have "the government" involved. The only difference is, we're used to "the government" telling us we cannot starve our children or sell their labors, but we're not used to "the government" telling us we cannot neglect their education if we opt out of the public educational system.

 

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.

 

I disagree that a creationist view is voluntary and honest. Children naturally believe what they're taught, and who is more trustworthy than a loving parent or a school of professional teachers? If teaching creationism were truly voluntary, parents, private schools, and churches would refrain from teaching it until the child matures and can make an informed decision. Can you imagine how many 18 year olds who had never been taught creationism would embrace it after learning about it for the first time? Precious few, I'm sure! If it was truly voluntary, parents wouldn't "protect" their kids from learning biology appropriately, including understanding how the theory of evolution works, and would encourage their kids to learn objectively, not the kind of misrepresentation of evolution constantly illustrated here. If it were honest, the evidence would show that.

 

I also disagree with the idea that neglecting an integral part of education (scientific method, higher order critical thinking skills) does not impact society as a whole. Further, I think what it does infringe on (educational neglect) should be protected as a fundamental right for children. That's part of what this kind of conversation will likely explore.

 

What good has the regulation done?

 

Provide the right for black children to have equal access to education.

Provide the right for girls to have equal access to education.

Provide the right for non Christian children to have equal access to education.

Provide the right for children of LGBT couples, divorced parents, and single parents to have equal access to education.

Provide the right for children with physical and cognitive challenges have access to a free and appropriate education.

Provide the right for Native American children to stay at home and not be kidnapped for the sake of a "civilized" education.

Provide the right for communities of a certain size to have access to a public education.

Provide the right for an education free of charge for the individual, to be funded through collective taxes.

Provide federal funds for land grand universities.

Provide funds for transporting children to school.

Provide funds for research and subsequent establishment of extension of free public education through a network of community colleges.

Provide GI Bill for offsetting educational costs for those who serve in the military.

Provides funding for early education for at-risk students.

Provides funding for healthy food availability for students.

There's lots more, but you get the idea.

[albeto]

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.

 

No one is arguing children shouldn't be taught creationism.

 

That would be a sort of silly argument, I agree.

[WishboneDawn]

 

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.

 

 

Science may not be a matter of democratic decision making but democracy is and you're talking about science within the system of democratic government, not standing on it's own. It should inform matters of public education, no doubt, but the rights that protect a creationist mom teaching her kids about a young earth also protect the atheist mom homeschooling to shelter her kids from a local school awash in evangelism or a school board that pushes creationist texts.

 

It looks like a good idea to force proper science instruction on homeschoolers until the other side realizes that the rights you took away in order to do that can be manipulated to their liking too.

[albeto]

 

Correct - but when there is an overseer who decides what should and should not be taught - that's a problem.

 

 

In what way is a representative, voted by a community, whose political actions are expected to be public information, "an overseer"?

[WishboneDawn]

 

No one is arguing children shouldn't be taught creationism.

 

That would be a sort of silly argument, I agree.

 

Whoops. I'll leave my last post up since you've likely just read it but you're right of course, you weren't talking about NOT teaching creationism.

 

Still don't agree with you though. :D

[albeto]

Science may not be a matter of democratic decision making but democracy is and you're talking about science within the system of democratic government, not standing on it's own. It should inform matters of public education, no doubt, but the rights that protect a creationist mom teaching her kids about a young earth also protect the atheist mom homeschooling to shelter her kids from a local school awash in evangelism or a school board that pushes creationist texts.

 

Agreed. This is why I am not advocating removing the right of a parent to teach creationism to her child.

 

ETA: I posted at the same time as you!

 

:)

[PachiSusan]

Are you speaking about public schools, or just homeschools?

Overseer in public schools--district admins, state board of ed, federal dept of ed

Overseer of private--don't know what they're called, but I'll bet they have them for each school

Homeschools-most states have requirements about what should be taught. Even Texas has a broad description. Heck, many states even require testing, attendance taking, and hours of schooling requirements.

I don't think anyone has said outright that certain things should NOT be taught, just that certain things should be included, right?

 

Or perhaps you are of the persuasion that wishes there were no education regulations at all, that public schools are a privilege and not a right, and there's no need for a Dept of Ed, etc?

 

 

My comment has more to do with "who watches the watchers?" than anything else. If there is to be something mandated by someone in power, there will always be someone in the minority who is disenfranchised.

 

As to the bolded, I read that creation should NOT be taught from the comments in this thread. Evolution and science is fine, but when creation is involved, the schools may not teach this because it is invalid to science. That is making a value judgement.

 

I have no beef with teaching science. I am a very scientific minded person. I just don't think that faith and science are exclusive of each other. They work hand in hand.

[PachiSusan]

In what way is a representative, voted by a community, whose political actions are expected to be public information, "an overseer"?

 

 

"Someone* has to be making the final decision. Just look at how many people are against Common Core and there WERE public instances where their voices could be heard, but they were drowned out.

 

I never really expected or wanted to get deeply involved in this discussion so I probably shouldn't have posted at all. I need to bug out at this point and go teach my child the rest of the day's lesson plans. :) I am glad this has stayed civil. :hurray:

[PachiSusan]

whoops - double post!

[Rosie_0801]

 

As to the bolded, I read that creation should NOT be taught from the comments in this thread. Evolution and science is fine, but when creation is involved, the schools may not teach this because it is invalid to science. That is making a value judgement.

 

 

Well yes, it's making a judgement to adhere to dictionary definitions.

[Haiku]

 

As to the bolded, I read that creation should NOT be taught from the comments in this thread. Evolution and science is fine, but when creation is involved, the schools may not teach this because it is invalid to science. That is making a value judgement.

 

 

Evolution and science should be taught because they are science. Creationism should not be taught because it is religion. Religion should not be taught in science class (or in public schools). That's not making a value judgment. It's defining a subject by the parameters of that subject and not introducing irrelevant material (and by irrelevant I mean material that is not germane to the subject).

 

For all those who are so hot to see creationism taught in schools ... do you really want the public schools defining how your religious beliefs are taught to your child? Wouldn't you rather do that yourself?

 

Tara

[WishboneDawn]

 

Evolution and science should be taught because they are science. Creationism should not be taught because it is religion. Religion should not be taught in science class (or in public schools). That's not making a value judgment. It's defining a subject by the parameters of that subject and not introducing irrelevant material (and by irrelevant I mean material that is not germane to the subject).

 

For all those who are so hot to see creationism taught in schools ... do you really want the public schools defining how your religious beliefs are taught to your child? Wouldn't you rather do that yourself?

 

Tara

 

 

Religion could well be taught in schools. Teaching about religion doesn't mean evangelizing. The unfortunate bit is that when I see that proposed, at least here in Canada, often times some Christians get uptight because they're suddenly treated as equal to other religions in a class like that.

 

The Bible should be taught in schools IMO. It's a historical value that's been foundational to our society. I think that would likely upset a lot of atheists and, after seeing a good secular approach to the Bible, many Chrsitians. That probably means it's a great idea. :D

[junepep]

I agree that enforceable legislation has been a really positive thing.

 

But where I keep getting hung up on this topic is: How would you enforce that Evolution be taught, and how would you enforce the WAY that it is taught? It would be easy to read several pseudo-science texts debunking evolution and call that your evolution instruction.

 

Edited - I desperately need to start using a browser with spell check.

[Haiku]

Religion could well be taught in schools.

 

 

Yes, and it often is, in historical context or in survey courses. I'm talking about imparting religious beliefs to children, not teaching them about what various religions believe. (And even courses that teach about "what different religions believe" can only scratch the surface and not account for all the variations. I'm sure we could rile up a lot of people on this board if we tried to come up with a definition of "What Christians Believe.") And it still shouldn't be done in science class. :tongue_smilie:

 

Tara

[KarenNC]

 

Religion could well be taught in schools. Teaching about religion doesn't mean evangelizing. The unfortunate bit is that when I see that proposed, at least here in Canada, often times some Christians get uptight because they're suddenly treated as equal to other religions in a class like that.

 

The Bible should be taught in schools IMO. It's a historical value that's been foundational to our society. I think that would likely upset a lot of atheists and, after seeing a good secular approach to the Bible, many Chrsitians. That probably means it's a great idea. :D

 

The Bible is taught here in public schools, but as a social studies elective, not part of a core science class. It's funded by a nonprofit Bible Teaching Association at each of our county high schools. Here's the list of options from our local public high school (each counts as one elective):

Intro to Old Testament

Intro to New Testament

Adv. Old Testament

Adv. New Testament

 

Seems like a fairly widespread text for teaching academic Biblical literacy (as opposed to a specific theology or devotionally) is The Bible and Its Influence from www.bibleliteracy.org (though I'm not sure that's what the local high school uses). In fact, I'm planning on using it this year with my daughter, and we are not Christian. I feel strongly that in order to be fully literate in Western English-speaking society, one needs a thorough grounding in the Bible, Classical mythology, and Shakespeare. Otherwise you won't understand all the artistic and literary allusions. I teach about religion as part of religion, geography, history, literature, and, possibly, foreign language, but not as part of science or math.

 

Unfortunately, there are not similar electives for any other religions or even a general world religions class.

[Georgiana Daniels]

 

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.

 

 

Then you'd better hope you always agree with the decision-makers :)

 

In public school, I understand that there has to be some kind of common standards. But in private school--and DEFINITELY in my homeschool--I want the gov't and overseers to keep there nose out. Forever and ever, amen.

[albeto]

Then you'd better hope you always agree with the decision-makers :)

 

I don't always agree with the decisions. Some decisions are mildly irritating, some pose practical challenges, some are downright infuriating. Nevertheless, there are certain public policies that affect society as a whole, and education is one of them. Addressing these public policies rationally, with information and critical thought, is better than ignoring them and pretending there is no problem.

 

In public school, I understand that there has to be some kind of common standards. But in private school--and DEFINITELY in my homeschool--I want the gov't and overseers to keep there nose out. Forever and ever, amen.

 

I understand, and at the moment you have that. However, an education like the one illustrated in the OP is opening eyes to those who are not familiar with what small private schools are teaching kids, or what you're teaching your kids in your home. People are starting to have conversations about what our rights as a society are and how educating our youth fit into that. That's a valuable conversation to have, in my opinion.

[Aslana]

 

Religion could well be taught in schools. Teaching about religion doesn't mean evangelizing. The unfortunate bit is that when I see that proposed, at least here in Canada, often times some Christians get uptight because they're suddenly treated as equal to other religions in a class like that.

 

The Bible should be taught in schools IMO. It's a historical value that's been foundational to our society. I think that would likely upset a lot of atheists and, after seeing a good secular approach to the Bible, many Chrsitians. That probably means it's a great idea. :D

 

If the Christian bible gets taught then so does the Torah, the Qur'an, the Pagan system, the Wiccan system, and any other "bible" out there. They are ALL equally as valid to our history!

 

That's the problem. Many Christians want ONLY the bible taught and they want it taught as a factual class, not as a historical item. You simply cannot allow that without allowing all the other factual bibles and beliefs in as well. And since some Christians don't want to play nice and let the others in, NO ONE gets in.

 

When the public schools can teach from the Torah, Qur'an, and other belief system's books, then the Christian bible will be welcome. Until then, no one gets a say in what's taught outside of the educational standards set forth by the government (eg: science and evolution).

[Rosie_0801]

 

If the Christian bible gets taught then so does the Torah, the Qur'an, the Pagan system, the Wiccan system, and any other "bible" out there. They are ALL equally as valid to our history!

 

That's the problem. Many Christians want ONLY the bible taught and they want it taught as a factual class, not as a historical item. You simply cannot allow that without allowing all the other factual bibles and beliefs in as well. And since some Christians don't want to play nice and let the others in, NO ONE gets in.

 

When the public schools can teach from the Torah, Qur'an, and other belief system's books, then the Christian bible will be welcome. Until then, no one gets a say in what's taught outside of the educational standards set forth by the government (eg: science and evolution).

 

 

I wouldn't have thought it unreasonable if the schools in the Bible belt wanted to run Biblical electives, but perhaps it is not legal? I don't really understand why they would want that, though. Wouldn't their kids get all that at church? If not, is their church doing it's job properly?

[Aslana]

 

I wouldn't have thought it unreasonable if the schools in the Bible belt wanted to run Biblical electives, but perhaps it is not legal? I don't really understand why they would want that, though. Wouldn't their kids get all that at church? If not, is their church doing it's job properly?

 

 

As an elective, I do not think it is illegal, but I also believe it is up to each state/local to determine this. I would be fine with a World Religions course at the high school level provided the teacher has been fully vetted as someone who is not going to espouse any one side of those beliefs more than another (which, I understand, would be very difficult to find).

 

As to the church issue, I've asked that myself--why do you even want this in the heathen public schools when they get it from your church? Why would you want Religion (not world religions but a specific religion) taught as fact in a public school system you lack faith in to begin with--teaching your kid about your belief in your God (whomever that may be)?

 

My point was that some Christians want ONLY the Christian bible taught as fact. That is not fair nor is it right to the other faiths out there. An elective? Sure, that means "voluntary". As a requirement? Nope, not until ALL faiths are allowed equal representation in this requirement. Selectively choosing it as an elective? Sure, not fair, but at least it's an elective. Selectively saying ONLY the Christian bible, not taught as an elective? Nope.

[Mandy in TN]

Ok, I have a dog in this fight. My children spent one year in the public school system and we refer to it as the lost year. As far as academics go, they learned less than nothing. I learned that children have the right to be presented certain subject matter, but they do not have the right to be challenged. I don't care if my child is on the honor roll particularly if he did absolutely nothing to earn it.

 

I cannot fix this problem. Education should be about meeting a child where he is and moving him forward. This should be particularly true of our top students. It was my experience that school is about presenting certain topics to a certain grade and while trying to make sure that the bottom of the class kept up at the expense of the top of the class whose talents were undeveloped, who were not challenged, who certainly were not learning to study, and who were learning to be lazy with their minds because they were handed easy grades. Kids who cannot keep up should be held back. Kids at the top of the class should be working hard for those grades. Cs should be what an average student is able to receive when they work for it. I cannot fix this problem, so I removed my children from the equation.

 

I do not want anything to do with government education. I don't want the government to tell me that I must cover fractions in fifth grade. If my child is ready for trig at 10yo, I want to be able to teach him trig without having to promote him to high school. Science and social studies are survey subjects and I see no reason why it is any more valid for my child to study one topic if he is interested in another. Why study Vikings in x grade if he is really burning to study the Maya? I do not want the government telling me what my child should study in x grade.

 

I would not, however, be opposed to a national exit exam for high school. Hey, golly gee, there is something sort of like this. It is the ACT or SAT. My umbrella requires above a certain score to graduate with a general diploma, and above another score for a college prep diploma, and above another score to graduate with honors. I am fine with this.

 

I am not fine with the government dictating what a child learns by grade level. "Gee, I am sorry Miss Mandy, but in order to teach your child physical science you will need to register him as an 8 grader and if he is registered for that grade he will also need to take US history, Alg 1, and 8th grade language arts No, Miss, you may not tailor each subject to meet him where he is. No, no- it doesn't matter if he is ready for Trig. However, you can feel free to teach him that in addition to the Alg 1 assignments. No, no- it doesn't matter that he really wants to study Renaissance history, but again he is free to study that independently. Sure, we can assist you with testing so he can skip a grade, but yes yes that means we would need to be globally gifted in all areas. Yes, yes, Miss Mandy, your dyslexic son can be held back in English, but that means that we hold him back in everything. Yes, yes, that means he will be studying the exact same history topics for a second year." Why in the world, when the public schools in TN are doing so poorly, would I want to give the state more control over my homeschool?

 

Mandy

 

 

 

 

[Delighted3]

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.

 

 

Education is most certainly based on belief. That is why educational policy changes every 5 minutes and schools have to buy new textbooks every other year. They are guided by the beliefs and agendas of the policy makers

 

 

 

I don't always agree with the decisions. Some decisions are mildly irritating, some pose practical challenges, some are downright infuriating. Nevertheless, there are certain public policies that affect society as a whole, and education is one of them. Addressing these public policies rationally, with information and critical thought, is better than ignoring them and pretending there is no problem.

 

I understand, and at the moment you have that. However, an education like the one illustrated in the OP is opening eyes to those who are not familiar with what small private schools are teaching kids, or what you're teaching your kids in your home. People are starting to have conversations about what our rights as a society are and how educating our youth fit into that. That's a valuable conversation to have, in my opinion.

 

 

Society doesn't have rights. Individuals do. Most small private schools graduate well educated students. They score high on standardized tests. They go on to college and become successful citizens. There is a much higher success rate among private schools than there is among public schools that are regulated to death. Additionally, I don't think you are as concerned about the education these students are receiving as you are with them not receiving an education that conforms to your worldview. Education is about ideas, being able to read, write and think critically. When you talk about regulating ideas that are taught in school, you are not talking about education, you are talking about dumbing down society. The education received in my home does not have to be identical to the education received in your home for it to be just as valuable and productive.

[mommymilkies]

 

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

 

I can't see how testing or a little oversight would be oppression. In fact, I think it would help children overall. I have nothing to hide, so I don't care about some oversight. I live in a state with NO regulations. I think ticking in boxes for attendance would be annoying, but it certainly isn't "oppressive".

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.

Exactly.

 

Religion could well be taught in schools. Teaching about religion doesn't mean evangelizing. The unfortunate bit is that when I see that proposed, at least here in Canada, often times some Christians get uptight because they're suddenly treated as equal to other religions in a class like that.

 

The Bible should be taught in schools IMO. It's a historical value that's been foundational to our society. I think that would likely upset a lot of atheists and, after seeing a good secular approach to the Bible, many Chrsitians. That probably means it's a great idea. :D

I agree. I feel all children should be taught world religions before graduation. Not necessarily in depth, and not necessarily mandatory, but overall, I think it's an excellent idea. I teach my children about many different belief systems. That was also how I was raised (Jewish, Baptist, and Catholic family). But religion is not science.

[WishboneDawn]

 

As an elective, I do not think it is illegal, but I also believe it is up to each state/local to determine this. I would be fine with a World Religions course at the high school level provided the teacher has been fully vetted as someone who is not going to espouse any one side of those beliefs more than another (which, I understand, would be very difficult to find).

 

As to the church issue, I've asked that myself--why do you even want this in the heathen public schools when they get it from your church? Why would you want Religion (not world religions but a specific religion) taught as fact in a public school system you lack faith in to begin with--teaching your kid about your belief in your God (whomever that may be)?

 

My point was that some Christians want ONLY the Christian bible taught as fact. That is not fair nor is it right to the other faiths out there. An elective? Sure, that means "voluntary". As a requirement? Nope, not until ALL faiths are allowed equal representation in this requirement. Selectively choosing it as an elective? Sure, not fair, but at least it's an elective. Selectively saying ONLY the Christian bible, not taught as an elective? Nope.

 

Teaching the Bible isn't about representing a faith, it's about cultural literacy for those of us living in Western societies. So in those terms, any other "bible" is NOT equally "valid" (and I only put that in quotation marks because I'm dissatisfied with the term and the way it makes it seem as if I'm implying that the others you listed are of lesser worth as a whole. I don't mean to be snarky). The Torah and Hebrew Scriptures (or OT) yes. But also (and this should clarify that I'm not talking about the Bible from a faith perspective in this discussion) Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare and Descartes.

 

Secular and non-Christian folk have a solid claim on the Bible and they should exercise it. I don't give a flying fart what some fellow Christians might think if it's not taught the way they wish it was. A literal reading of the Bible would not make any sense to those outside their denominations nor shed any light on the hows and whys of its influence throughout Western history. But NO reading of the Bible? It's like learning English while ignoring the study of grammar.

 

Studying religions/faiths is a whole 'nother matter and I agree with you that if students had to study Christianity then they should be studying all the world's major religions.

[Aslana]

I'm off to bed because I've developed a lovely little sinus issue but to your point about no reading of the bible is kind of invalid. They DO teach about the bible (and other religions and their texts) in a world history class. So it isn't like the kids aren't getting exposed to it at all.

 

I'm strictly and solely referring to those that want THE BIBLE and ONLY THE BIBLE taught as fact in a science, non-literature, non-world history class. As an elective, fine. As a mandatory class for all students? No. Not unless the other faiths (and they are all valid, whether you agree or not) get equal representation the same way. No one was arguing that Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare, or any other not be taught.

 

If we cannot give all the faiths equal lip service then no faith should get it. And again, I'm speaking of lip service in a factual science, non-literature, non-world history, non-elective class. If we are talking about world history or as an elective or as a literature course, fine. As long as it is elective and not mandatory like some want.

 

(you edited as I was typing. We agree on what I'm trying to say).

[AimeeM]

I don't always agree with the decisions. Some decisions are mildly irritating, some pose practical challenges, some are downright infuriating. Nevertheless, there are certain public policies that affect society as a whole, and education is one of them. Addressing these public policies rationally, with information and critical thought, is better than ignoring them and pretending there is no problem.

 

 

 

I understand, and at the moment you have that. However, an education like the one illustrated in the OP is opening eyes to those who are not familiar with what small private schools are teaching kids, or what you're teaching your kids in your home. People are starting to have conversations about what our rights as a society are and how educating our youth fit into that. That's a valuable conversation to have, in my opinion.

 

Here's the thing. Until the government can prove they can effectively run the public schools they currently have a hand in, why would I agree that they should have ANY hand in the private/homeschool sector? Whether you agree with the religious factors involved or not, you really can't argue that, largely, private schools (even some that teach literal young earth creationism) are graduating young adults who are ultimately far more successful than the majority of public schools.

Here, for example, I *think* every single private school is affiliated with a church or religion - and ALL of them have rates in the percentiles of the high 90's of students accepted, after graduation, to 4 year universities - mostly of the secular variety (colleges, I mean). There, at least, you can be assured that they will be exposed to evolution. I believe that my own state's HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE was recently ranked at 72%... that is 72% of students who graduate high school... that is RIDICULOUS.

Also, I'm not aware of any private school that doesn't TEACH evolution - they may TEACH that they disagree with it, but all that I'm familiar with (even here in the bible belt) DO teach it on some level.

 

I agree, too, with the previous poster that stated society doesn't have rights, individuals do - and I'll go so far as to say I hope it always stays that way... whether I agree with the decisions others make or not, I hope that they always have the right to make those decisions; I hope that they always have the right to do right, to screw up, to learn from their mistakes - all of those things breed a sense of individual responsibility in a way that always having a big brother breathing down your neck, dictating right from wrong, will never, never be able to accomplish.

[WishboneDawn]

(you edited as I was typing. We agree on what I'm trying to say).

 

 

Allrighty then. :D

[momma2three]

Here's the thing. Until the government can prove they can effectively run the public schools they currently have a hand in, why would I agree that they should have ANY hand in the private/homeschool sector? Whether you agree with the religious factors involved or not, you really can't argue that, largely, private schools (even some that teach literal young earth creationism) are graduating young adults who are ultimately far more successful than the majority of public schools.

Here, for example, I *think* every single private school is affiliated with a church or religion - and ALL of them have rates in the percentiles of the high 90's of students accepted, after graduation, to 4 year universities - mostly of the secular variety (colleges, I mean). There, at least, you can be assured that they will be exposed to evolution. I believe that my own state's HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE was recently ranked at 72%... that is 72% of students who graduate high school... that is RIDICULOUS.

Also, I'm not aware of any private school that doesn't TEACH evolution - they may TEACH that they disagree with it, but all that I'm familiar with (even here in the bible belt) DO teach it on some level.

 

That comparison would only be valid if the private schools had the exact same demographics, had absolutely no admissions standards, and could not kick students out. That's what public schools are working with, so OF COURSE their graduation and college acceptance rates are lower.

[AimeeM]

That comparison would only be valid if the private schools had the exact same demographics, had absolutely no admissions standards, and could not kick students out. That's what public schools are working with, so OF COURSE their graduation and college acceptance rates are lower.

 

Ah well. My opinion on what public schools could do about those problems is wildly unpopular and off subject (to the OP) so I'll bow out, lol.

[creekland]

Can you imagine how many 18 year olds who had never been taught creationism would embrace it after learning about it for the first time? Precious few, I'm sure!

 

 

It's a boring morning, so I got around to reading this thread rather than ignoring them as I usually do. My plans were just to read, but your statement got me thinking...

 

EVERY single creationist I know embraced it after age 18. Some of those have advanced science degrees from secular Us.

 

Granted, I'm in the wrong part of the country (or wrong circles) to see creationism-only teaching to young kids, so those areas/circles probably have some who grew up with the beliefs you are describing, but it doesn't fit my circle/area. I work in our local public high school and our circle includes other teachers + spouses, engineers (what my other half does), neighbors, and adults we know in our small town area. We moved here from a large city area in FL. There we knew several professionals in many disciplines. Obviously, not everyone we know is a YEC creationist - not even all Christians we know, but there are definitely oodles out there in all sorts of secular jobs.

 

It doesn't bug me at all. I DON'T care what others believe about origins (Christian or not). It has as much to do with everyday life as what they believe about Atlantis.

 

Maybe again I'm in wrong circles, but no creationist I know disbelieves in the evolution we SEE every day (viruses, etc - all natural selection stuff). Some are actively working in areas where those things matter (NIH is very close to us). They only disagree with molecules to man sort of stuff - that which we can't SEE every day. Maybe it happened. Maybe it didn't. It really doesn't matter for today's science.

 

My kids are taught both so they can be knowledgeable in any conversation they come across - they can decide what they want to believe. I don't care which way they choose.

[albeto]

Here's the thing. Until the government can prove they can effectively run the public schools they currently have a hand in, why would I agree that they should have ANY hand in the private/homeschool sector?

 

Well, I think the partial list I posted earlier explains just how the government can effectively run schools for the general population at the expense of the tax-payers (the community), rather than education being dependent upon financial means (private only). Ultimately, however, you don't have to agree they should have any hand in the private/homeschool sector. The conversation will happen anyway, and it will include those who do not have children in homeschool, but who recognize the value of education on society in general.

[albeto]

It's a boring morning, so I got around to reading this thread rather than ignoring them as I usually do. My plans were just to read, but your statement got me thinking...

 

EVERY single creationist I know embraced it after age 18. Some of those have advanced science degrees from secular Us.

 

Understood. Nation wide statistics show a different trend.

 

It doesn't bug me at all. I DON'T care what others believe about origins (Christian or not). It has as much to do with everyday life as what they believe about Atlantis.

 

It bothers me a great deal, and I'm not alone in expressing my concern. As soon as education is founded upon the premise that "it is right because God said so," we've moved beyond science, into religious proselytizing. The right to proselytize to one's own children isn't up for debate, and is protected in the Constitution anyway. The right to be educated outside a theocratic construct is being increasingly debated, and the test linked in the OP illustrates one of the reasons why.

[Saddlemomma]

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)

 

 

According to Berkely, there is differentiation when speaking scientifically:

 

"

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants.

Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

 

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

 

Once we've figured out

what

evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out

how

they happened. Just as in

microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like

mutation

, migration,

genetic drift

, and

natural selection

are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

 

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time."

 

Microevolution is basic change/adaptation within a species. Macroevolution is grand changes from one species to another, which is used to explain the origin of mammals as stated above.

 

Regardless of whether you like it or not, the two terms are different. I can subscribe to microevolution as we can see it all around us. However, as Berkeley.edu stated "...macroevolutionary history...there are no first hand accounts...

[Aslana]

It bothers me a great deal, and I'm not alone in expressing my concern. As soon as education is founded upon the premise that "it is right because God said so," we've moved beyond science, into religious proselytizing. The right to proselytize to one's own children isn't up for debate, and is protected in the Constitution anyway. The right to be educated outside a theocratic construct is being increasingly debated, and the test linked in the OP illustrates one of the reasons why.

 

 

I'll expand upon this and say it bothers me not just because it becomes proselytizing when you do what you said, but it also means that there are whole groups of individuals being educated in a way that is greatly the opposite of what society and the science backs up and this can damage a society. I realize some just don't see that and that's fine, but it does.

 

One of the ways it damages is it draws dividing lines in the sand. If you truly believe that your faith requires you to share it with the world--whether through a museum, books, standing on the street corner, educating your children--then you must realize that HOW you present that information to those you are trying to share it with, is of major importance.

 

No one here in this thread has said anything like this, but many do teach from material that say this--you've got Bob Jones who is extremely anti-catholic and racist and that's quite obvious in their materials. When you have a parent who absolutely cannot break away from that material in any way (like many of us do--editing it to make it their own), you have parents raising children who believe the Catholics are going to hell and black and white people should never mix.

(the caveat is that I understand Bob Jones has edited this belief somewhat).

 

And, thus, if your goal is to "save" people, teaching kids that dinosaurs and man roamed the planet together (or that the Catholics are going to hell, or that black and white people shouldn't mix, etc.. on and on) is not going to make those you are trying to save very open to your message. Someone upthread mentioned how they hate how this one issue divides people so much. I hate it too. Whether I believe in Creation or Evolution is not going to be one of the test questions upon my requesting entry into Heaven. But, how I presented that belief will be. Did I present it in such a way that strengthened or weakened whatever my side was? Did I turn whole groups of people away from ever wanting to hear the message of my belief (whichever side that is) with the way I presented it?

 

So the point is, when you have parents teaching from material that damns an entire group of people to hell for their beliefs (and teaches the kid false information to back this damnation up), you certainly do have a societal problem on your hands and one that should be of concern.

 

The downside to this is that you and I both have the right to teach our children what we want--even if it is wrong, racist, bigoted, or whatever. So there's no real solution to this problem that would satisfy both your right and my right to teach as we wish. Until one does present itself, perhaps the solution is that both sides need to accept the other's existence and do our best to focus on the actual problems in this world; rather than focus on who is getting into heaven because of whether or not they believe dinosaurs are 6 billion or 6 thousand years old.

[Erin]

According to Berkely, there is differentiation when speaking scientifically:

 

I'm not sure you're understanding what they're saying.

They're still saying that "macro" is just more "micro." Not that they're different somehow.

As I've said elsewhere, it's like saying mm are somehow different than km. They're really not. One is just for looking at smaller pictures and other for larger. But they're directly connected.

 

From your same link:

 

Ie, "macro" evolution is just "micro" plus a whole lot more years...

[Free]

Regardless of whether you like it or not, the two terms are different. I can subscribe to microevolution as we can see it all around us. However, as Berkeley.edu stated "...macroevolutionary history...there are no first hand accounts...

 

 

Firstly, why is a first hand account important in science? Secondly, speciation is also a macroevolutionary change and it has been observed plenty of times in many different organisms.

[Spy Car]

 

 

The Bible is taught here in public schools, but as a social studies elective, not part of a core science class. It's funded by a nonprofit Bible Teaching Association at each of our county high schools. Here's the list of options from our local public high school (each counts as one elective):

Intro to Old Testament

Intro to New Testament

Adv. Old Testament

Adv. New Testament

 

Seems like a fairly widespread text for teaching academic Biblical literacy (as opposed to a specific theology or devotionally) is The Bible and Its Influence from www.bibleliteracy.org (though I'm not sure that's what the local high school uses). In fact, I'm planning on using it this year with my daughter, and we are not Christian. I feel strongly that in order to be fully literate in Western English-speaking society, one needs a thorough grounding in the Bible, Classical mythology, and Shakespeare. Otherwise you won't understand all the artistic and literary allusions. I teach about religion as part of religion, geography, history, literature, and, possibly, foreign language, but not as part of science or math.

 

Unfortunately, there are not similar electives for any other religions or even a general world religions class.

 

I'm with you on believing a well-educated student should have considerable exposure to Classical mythology, Jewish and Christian mythology, and ideally the mythology of other cultures (Norse, Hindu, etc).

 

But the problem, as I see it, with Bible classes in public schools is that it leaves a pretty big opportunity for a teacher to get carried away with his or her own agenda. It would be nice if it could be done professionally, but I wonder how that works in reality. Same with students. I know my wife had a "Bible as Literature" class in college and it was disrupted by students who attempted to use the class as an evangelizing opportunity. It got so bad evidently that some students were ejected from the class. So I dunno.

 

Bill

[creekland]

I'm not sure you're understanding what they're saying.

They're still saying that "macro" is just more "micro." Not that they're different somehow.

As I've said elsewhere, it's like saying mm are somehow different than km. They're really not. One is just for looking at smaller pictures and other for larger. But they're directly connected.

 

From your same link:

 

Ie, "macro" evolution is just "micro" plus a whole lot more years...

 

While that is a great analogy for what micro = macro evolutionary scientists believe, it is not such a great analogy for what is readily seen by all. With mm and km, ALL can readily see it happening and no one disputes it. Not so with micro --> macro. That is taken by faith since it isn't readily seen now, nor in the fossil record (we only see major changes there, not the minor changes to get between the two).

 

Incidently, not all who disagree with micro --> macro are religious nor creationist. There are some other possibilities in there that I found to be of great interest back in the day when my homeschooling guys and I were studying the possibilities. At least one that comes to mind was shown on that "religious" channel PBS in a NOVA show... I don't remember what it was called, but it showed a scientist who believed that the second and/or third nucleotides in codons could be flipped "on" or "off" to produce different traits and over the years different (unknown) causes (epigenetics?) changed them. He was busy working in a (secular) lab to see what he could do with it. I never heard a follow-up, but I consider that one of the most intriguing possibilities I've heard of.

 

Firstly, why is a first hand account important in science?

 

Because otherwise what is believed is taken on faith. Maybe not faith in a supreme being of any sort, but faith, nonetheless.

 

Secondly, speciation is also a macroevolutionary change and it has been observed plenty of times in many different organisms.

 

And if one wants to call it macro, they may, but regardless of name, no one (I know of) disputes it. The macro that is disputed is the vast changes between families, not anything between species or genus (wolf --> dog, etc). What is truly seen is not disputed (again, my circle is small, but they are pretty similar in views and very intelligent with reasoning - many have science degrees). Darwins finches likely all descended from the same type of bird. They did not evolve into anything "non-bird." Over time - even billions of years, they are not likely to evolve into anything "non-bird" by chance. If anyone thinks they might, that's fine by me, but they are using "faith" to believe in it.

 

But I remain intrigued about those other nucleotides in the codons... and would love to see a follow up. If this weren't such a polarizing issue there could potentially be far more experimentation going on that might actually give us more answers. But micro --> macro seems to be the only thing science folks have to take on faith without questioning or they'll get shunned in many places - even those who aren't religious. It's as deep a closet for those with science interest as gay folks used to have to deal with. To any who think they don't know anyone who doesn't believe in it (aside from online, of course), I'll bet you do. You just don't know it. ;) A few years back the Dover case was fairly close to us and it brought up a bit of discussion in all sorts of circles from soccer moms to science. Even now, some kids tackle the subject each year in school in English classes when they can choose a paper of their choice (some pro, some con). This is a public school and their views aren't judged - just the writing. The subject, itself, is never taught or brought up in our school by any teacher. These kids are learning about it from somewhere else.

[Free]

Because otherwise what is believed is taken on faith. Maybe not faith in a supreme being of any sort, but faith, nonetheless.

 

 

I disagree. Faith implies a lack of evidence. Further taking on faith also implies a lack of verifiability and falsifiability of a claim.

 

Scientists cannot just make an assertion and expect others to take their claims on faith.That is not science. The scientific method requires you to base your conclusions on careful analysis of evidence using logic and reason. Further the conclusions should be falsifiable and should be able to make useful predictions.

 

Sure the strength of a scientific theory lies in the evidence that can be collected to support it. In this aspect, the theory of evolution has only been strengthened in the last 150 years with more and more evidence from wide ranging fields such as paleontology, genetics, biogeography and many others.

 

And if one wants to call it macro, they may, but regardless of name, no one (I know of) disputes it. The macro that is disputed is the vast changes between families, not anything between species or genus (wolf --> dog, etc). What is truly seen is not disputed (again, my circle is small, but they are pretty similar in views and very intelligent with reasoning - many have science degrees). Darwins finches likely all descended from the same type of bird. They did not evolve into anything "non-bird." Over time - even billions of years, they are not likely to evolve into anything "non-bird" by chance. If anyone thinks they might, that's fine by me, but they are using "faith" to believe in it.

 

What is a non-bird? Are penguins birds? Are ostriches? What defining characteristic would you identify among birds that you feel will remain unchanged billion years later? Once microevolutionary changes pile up, followed by multiple speciation events, what makes you certain that you would be able to look at the creatures that walk the earth a billion years from now and still be able to identify which are the birds and which are the mammals?

 

But I remain intrigued about those other nucleotides in the codons... and would love to see a follow up. If this weren't such a polarizing issue there could potentially be far more experimentation going on that might actually give us more answers. But micro --> macro seems to be the only thing science folks have to take on faith without questioning or they'll get shunned in many places - even those who aren't religious. It's as deep a closet for those with science interest as gay folks used to have to deal with.

It is possible that there is politics in scientific institutions and sometimes deserving research gets overlooked. On the other hand, it is also possible that a research idea that seemed promising at the beginning turned out to be untenable in reality. Look at the cold-fusion research for example. It is possible there are individual scientists who are prejudiced, but I like to place my trust in the integrity of the scientific community.

 

For example there was a recent story about a Christian scientist Dr.Mary Schweitzer who discovered soft tissue in 68 million year old dinosaur bones. The idea that soft tissues could still be found in 68 million year old bones was against all established thinking and the scientific community was initially skeptical. But she ultimately found acceptance and support because her research was solid.

 

Incidentally the YEC community tried to claim her research was proof for a young earth. From the article linked above:

She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,†she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.†For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.â€

[Free]

While that is a great analogy for what micro = macro evolutionary scientists believe, it is not such a great analogy for what is readily seen by all. With mm and km, ALL can readily see it happening and no one disputes it. Not so with micro --> macro. That is taken by faith since it isn't readily seen now, nor in the fossil record (we only see major changes there, not the minor changes to get between the two).

 

It is incorrect that macroevolutionary changes are not seen in the fossil record. My knowledge in this area is limited, but just a basic google search turns up more results for fossil evidence than I could possibly read or understand.

 

Besides this, a lot of modern evidence for evolution lies not among the fossils but among the genes. Your genes can pull up your entire evolutionary history which is kind of cool.

 

But even without fossils or genetics, there are still other areas of study such as anatomy, microbiology, embryology and bio-geography which can still provide you with the evolutionary accounts - sometimes multiple accounts which all line up together perfectly. I think that is especially fascinating.

[Cricket]

 

 

I disagree. Faith implies a lack of evidence. Further taking on faith also implies a lack of verifiability and falsifiability of a claim.

 

Scientists cannot just make an assertion and expect others to take their claims on faith.That is not science. The scientific method requires you to base your conclusions on careful analysis of evidence using logic and reason. Further the conclusions should be falsifiable and should be able to make useful predictions.

 

This is what frustrates me about this debate. Faith is not belief in spite of having no evidence. Could I really have faith in a god if I just made him up in my mind and it made no logical sense? Faith in God comes from hearing and believing what is said about God. It comes from logically analyzing what is written in the Bible. As far as the creation story in Genesis, there is very strong evidence that it was written as poetry and does not have to be taken literally. I'm perfectly fine if someone accepts evolution as well as believing the Bible to be true. I don't like when one side says you can't do that. And I get equally annoyed when someone dismisses faith as simply believing whatever in the face of no evidence. This is what frustrates me on the creation side of the debate. If the Genesis account is literally true, then there should be overwhelming scientific evidence for this, not just holes in the evolutionary theory. (Just as an aside, evolution does not automatically mean there is no Creator either. The more I read how we are made and how complicated our world is, it amazes me how someone could think there is no Designer!)

 

Science also requires faith. If I needed surgery, in order to allow myself to be taken into the operating room, I have to have faith that the doctor has the ability to perform the surgery, don't I? That faith is based in my interactions with him, his credentials, testimony from other patients, etc. I wouldn't just go up to a random guy on the street and ask him to do the surgery. Faith is believing evidence. Faith isn't really, really wishing for something to be true. How silly is that?! Science and faith are not opposites.

 

Okay. Off my soap box for now. :-)

[nmoira]

This is what frustrates me about this debate. Faith is not belief in spite of having no evidence. Could I really have faith in a god if I just made him up in my mind and it made no logical sense? Faith in God comes from hearing and believing what is said about God. It comes from logically analyzing what is written in the Bible.

 

Faith doesn't require data and informs one's interpretation of data, not the other way around. One can make an argument within the parameters of an internally consistent logical construct such as a belief system (religion, the existence of lizard people overlords, what have you), but does not necessarily imply truth. You're designating it as truth based on faith, which is perfectly fine, but it's not evidence based.

[albeto]

Faith is believing evidence. Faith isn't really, really wishing for something to be true. How silly is that?! Science and faith are not opposites.

 

One difference is in what constitutes as evidence, and the critical analysis that follows. Religious faith allows for personal experience to be considered evidence, and the critical analysis that follows is understood to be legitimate based on factors inadmissible in the scientific method because of its subjective nature. Your example of having faith in a surgeon can be corroborated (or not) based on objective data - his/her history, education, experience, success rate, etc. Your faith that what you've heard about God being true (ie, Jesus was/is god-man who can change reality by sheer will) simply cannot be corroborated. It's reasons like this some people do not agree science and faith are not opposites. Fundamentally, they start with different premises, and they go in different directions immediately.

[Free]

Faith is not belief in spite of having no evidence.

Merriam-Webster online defines faith as a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof", which is logical because why would you need faith, if you have evidence?

 

Could I really have faith in a god if I just made him up in my mind and it made no logical sense? Faith in God comes from hearing and believing what is said about God. It comes from logically analyzing what is written in the Bible.

I think this raises the question, "What constitutes as evidence?".

 

Personal testimonies and Anecdotal data are certainly important evidences, but it is well known that they can be highly subjective and not always reliable. A personal experience cannot be independently verified. Further more, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For example, you would perhaps be more likely to believe someone who claimed to have been attacked by a dog as opposed to someone who claimed to have been attacked by a werewolf.

 

When the term evidence is used in scientific terms, it means data that can be independently tested, verified or falsified under consistently repeatable conditions - a claim that religion cannot make.

 

Science also requires faith. If I needed surgery, in order to allow myself to be taken into the operating room, I have to have faith that the doctor has the ability to perform the surgery, don't I? That faith is based in my interactions with him, his credentials, testimony from other patients, etc. I wouldn't just go up to a random guy on the street and ask him to do the surgery.

 

When I was using the term Science in my posts I was referring to the methodology used by scientists. A scientist cannot use faith as a way of understanding and making sense of the world around us.

 

I think you are here using the term Science as a body of knowledge. Certainly as a lay person I need to place my trust in the hands of experts in the field whether that expert is a plumber fixing my sink or a dentist fixing my teeth.

[creekland]

My knowledge in this area is limited, but just a basic google search turns up more results for fossil evidence than I could possibly read or understand.

 

I can see this - and it's what is often seen when "basic" debates happen - from both sides. Many people end up just parroting what they've heard or read without really knowing what it's based upon. It's why I tend to stay out of these debates and will be staying out in the future. There are enough of them that pop up on here that the truly curious (about either side) can do some deep research of their own.

 

FWIW, I STRONGLY recommend those searching (or teaching kids - preferably high school aged due to comprehension levels) to consider each side from "believers" in that side. Quite honestly, that's the only way to get the "real" truth about what each side believes. (Ditto that when studying religious beliefs.) If you do it from books, you tend to get less of the name calling - not none - but less. It's been too long for me to recommend books as I haven't kept up on the study much (not terribly interested in doing so) and it's an ongoing research deal for some folks. One of the things I love about science is that it changes as we know more. ;)

 

But for those who are convinced there "is" only one side, then limit your kids and teach just that. I think it's wrong, but do as you see fit. It's your right IMO. When they are older, they may get introduced to the other side in spite of your efforts to shield them. I've seen "conversions" go both ways. My kids know both (and many versions/variations of both). We purposely did that so they could be educated.

 

The more I read how we are made and how complicated our world is, it amazes me how someone could think there is no Designer!

 

My conclusion as well. There is no "one" answer that is obvious to all. They all see the exact same evidence and interpret it differently. Many theories make sense overall and with individual specifics. All theories have holes somewhere that are yet to be answered. The only thing "I" can't believe is that it all happened by chance. I just see no evidence or probability for that. But I'm ok if others do feel that way. We all make our own decisions as to which way we lean and/or believe.

 

As I said before, it's kind of like our beliefs in Atlantis... and affects us as much with what we do today (with the exception of those currently doing research). (This is said knowing "my" circle of creation/evolution folks - I know plenty of both with varying levels of expertise. To be totally honest, many don't really care - but I digress. We're talking about those who do. If there are those out there in each camp who don't believe what I know those around me believe, then that could - possibly - differ, but one has to make a stretch to figure out how.)

[Rosie_0801]

I've been thinking about this thread a lot, particularly the idea that we should all be open minded about the other point of view. When stated that way, they sound like each side is asking exactly the same thing as the other, but they really aren't.

 

The anti-creationists are asking the others to properly inform themselves about the theory of Evolution, what it is, what the evidence is in favour and what sort of discoveries could break the most current understanding. That could be done in one weekend by reading a recently printed book or two. Disagree with it if you like, but disagree with the right thing.

 

The other side wishes us to try and believe that a specific type of American style Protestantism is the ultimate truth, and that's virtually impossible for a bunch of ex- Christians who are ex-Christians because they couldn't be Christian.

[Cricket]

Merriam-Webster online defines faith as a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof", which is logical because why would you need faith, if you have evidence?

 

 

I looked up the definition you linked because I have never heard that definition of faith. I've always understood it to mean "believe" and "trust," which is the archaic definition. I guess there is no denying it. I'm old.

 

 

 

[creekland]

The anti-creationists are asking the others to properly inform themselves about the theory of Evolution, what it is, what the evidence is in favour and what sort of discoveries could break the most current understanding. That could be done in one weekend by reading a recently printed book or two. Disagree with it if you like, but disagree with the right thing.

 

Yup....

 

The other side wishes us to try and believe that a specific type of American style Protestantism is the ultimate truth, and that's virtually impossible for a bunch of ex- Christians who are ex-Christians because they couldn't be Christian.

 

Nope. The other side is asking folks to properly inform themselves about the theory of creation (but if you don't want "a" creator, choose intelligent design instead - I know folks in that category too), what it is, what the evidence is in favor and what sort of discoveries could break the most current understanding. That could be done in one weekend by reading a recently printed book or two. Disagree with it if you like, but disagree with the right thing. ;)

 

What you are thinking about is 6 days and a garden. That part - for those who believe it - is faith alone. No one need subscribe to faith unless they feel called to it.