Texas voting on science textbooks for public schools - evolution vs. creation

[Mergath]

Not only that, are there any other creation stories that are claimed to be absolute historical and scientific fact? I've not heard of any except the Christian one.

 

Not that I've ever heard of.  

[nmoira]

How many kids make it to middle school or high school never having been exposed to their family's creation myth/story of choice? Or if secular, that some others aren't? *For whose benefit* is this information to be included in a science curriculum?

[Nancy Ann]

I just asked for an example of something you could envision overturning ToE. I'm not expecting you to prognisticate, and I promise not to come back 50 years from now and say, "Ha, ha!" :)

 

I'm confused as to the test of your post. Science is about challenge and process, not holding on to cherished dogma. True sometimes individuals get in the way for a time, but they can't stop the tide.

 

 

I think some people hold on to ToE as if it were a religion or cherished dogma. I was just making the point that a professional scientist would not do that, or to the best of his human capability not do that. 

 

For me personally, what happens in the scientific world has little to do with my religious beliefs. The belief of God, specifically the God of Abraham that is also believed by those of Jewish and Muslim faith, has been around a lot longer than ToE and will be around a lot longer when/if ToE goes by the way side for something new.

 

When people use an example of evolution to show that God must not exist, I take little heed to it because science theories change and will continue to change. God remains and always will be unchanged. Our understanding of Him changes as time goes on, but God does not change. 

[nmoira]

When people use an example of evolution to show that God must not exist, I take little heed to it because science has changed and will continue to change.

Ummm, I would just point out the logical fallacy and move on. You can't prove a negative. Unless you're talking about a very specific idea of a god, as with the AIG folks, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

[Nancy Ann]

Ummm, I would just point out the logical fallacy and move on. You can't prove a negative. Unless you're talking about a very specific idea of a god, as with the AIG folks, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

 

You are taking my words so specifically I am really having a hard time with this conversation. I just mean how regular folks will use scientific theories and throw them in the face of a religious person to show them God can't exist.

 

Yep, that's another can of worms. 

[MomtoCandJ]

Should we do the same for other theories covered in science class that contradict some religious or philosophical teachings? Or only ToE?

A mention of different prospectives and where to get more information? Sure. It doesn't take up much class time and you are providing more information for those interested.

[nmoira]

A mention of different prospectives and where to get more information? Sure. It doesn't take up much class time and you are providing more information for those interested.

Which religions should we do this for?

[MomtoCandJ]

Both :)

I'm sorry I read that wrong. I was thinking the scientific Big Bang and the tv show.

[Mergath]

You are taking my words so specifically I am really having a hard time with this conversation. I just mean how regular folks will use scientific theories and throw them in the face of a religious person to show them God can't exist.

 

Yep, that's another can of worms. 

 

I've never heard anyone do that.  Like nmoira said, you can't prove a negative.

 

The thing is, most of the people I know who accept the evidence for evolution are perfectly able to separate evolution from the existence of some kind of deity.  It's when people CAN'T do that that problems arise.  Sure, there are a lot of people who accept evolution and don't believe in God, but you can't use one to prove the other.

 

What I hear constantly is that the existence of God would somehow prove that evolution can't happen, which is wrong for a long list of reasons.

[Spy Car]

Also, I'm still anxiously awaiting an explanation for why whales have vestigial leg bones if they've always been whales. Anyone?

I believe it is to help them run away from flying harpoons :D

 

Bill

[Violet Crown]

Ummm, I would just point out the logical fallacy and move on. You can't prove a negative. Unless you're talking about a very specific idea of a god, as with the AIG folks, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

As the wife of a professional philosopher, I must jump in when Someone is Philosophically Wrong on the Internet. You can indeed prove a negative.

 

P is true.

Therefore, not not-P.

 

Or,

 

I have exactly one cat.

My cat is over there.

Therefore, my cat is not in the box (not not-there).

 

ETA: Oh, you meant science can't, not philosophy can't. Like scientists can show anything useful. Isn't it odd how overfunded their departments are by comparison to philosophy?

[MomtoCandJ]

Which religions should we do this for?

The major ones (Christianity, Islam...) and what ever minor ones based on the population. In my area it would mainly be the Christian prospective but also Buddhists since we have some of those around. As far as different sects of Christianity, I'm not sure which theories would have differences.

[nmoira]

You are taking my words so specifically I am really having a hard time with this conversation. I just mean how regular folks will use scientific theories and throw them in the face of a religious person to show them God can't exist.

 

Yep, that's another can of worms.

I'll be clear then. Science, including ToE, cannot be used to show there is no higher power. Anyone who says it it can is committing a logical fallacy, so there's no reason to even have to whimsically reflect upon the dynamic nature of science. Now, if one's idea of a god includes the notion that it either *must* have done very specific things under very specific parameters OR it must not exist, that can be a problem when dealing with science. But science can't prove there are no gods.

[nmoira]

The major ones (Christianity, Islam...) and what ever minor ones based on the population. In my area it would mainly be the Christian prospective but also Buddhists since we have some of those around. As far as different sects of Christianity, I'm not sure which theories would have differences.

You think the folks on the Texas School Board will be down with the notion of including a mention Buddhist teachings in science class? :) [This is rhetorical; I'm not trying to trap you are say that you believe the same as them.]

 

Here's my real followup: In religious studies and literature classes, should reference be made to scientific theories and laws being contradicted, with links given?

[nmoira]

As the wife of a professional philosopher, I must jump in when Someone is Philosophically Wrong on the Internet. You can indeed prove a negative.

 

P is true.

Therefore, not not-P.

 

Or,

 

I have exactly one cat.

My cat is over there.

Therefore, my cat is not in the box (not not-there).

 

ETA: Oh, you meant science can't, not philosophy can't. Like scientists can show anything useful. Isn't it odd how overfunded their departments are by comparison to philosophy?

Touche, and yes. :)

 

I'm thrilled to have been taken to philosophical task. :D

[Violet Crown]

Touche, and yes. :)

 

I'm thrilled to have been taken to philosophical task. :D

Here, you can see how they amuse themselves:

Proofs That P http://consc.net/misc/proofs.html

[MomtoCandJ]

You think the folks on the Texas School Board will be down with the notion of including a mention Buddhist teachings in science class? :) [This is rhetorical; I'm not trying to trap you are say that you believe the same as them.]

 

Here's my real followup: In religious studies and literature classes, should reference be made to scientific theories and laws being contradicted, with links given?

I think so, let the students make informed arguments. I'm all for learning about about different beliefs and the reasoning behind those beliefs.

[nmoira]

Here, you can see how they amuse themselves:

Proofs That P http://consc.net/misc/proofs.html

Thanks.

 

And I vow to strive for greater precision of language in future. :D

[kitten18]

I agree, I was thinking of the major ones. But even just a mention of "Some believe that a higher being (God or what have you) created the Earth and all that is on it, if you want to know more about creationism, here is where you can look. In this class we will focus on evolution because there is more scientific evidence that this was how things came to be."

But, why?  It's a science class in a public school, the discussion of religion doesn't belong there.

[MomtoCandJ]

But, why? It's a science class in a public school, the discussion of religion doesn't belong there.

The point isn't to teach about a specific religion but to show students that there are other ways to explain how things came to be. The focus of the class will still be evolution, the mention is for students who want to know more about the other beliefs.

The teacher I had pretty much said "creationism is the belief that the world and all things on it was created by a higher being. If you want to know more about it there is a paper on my desk with links to various stories and beliefs"

[WishboneDawn]

For those of you who are so concerned with Intelligent Design filtering into textbooks and corrupting them with pseudo science, I suggest you read this article:

 

"...we find more and more biologists recognizing that intelligent design (ID) is a serious endeavor. Meyer’s book has been praised by George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School; Scott Turner, a professor of biology at SUNY; Russell Carlson, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Georgia and a dozen others."

 

"The Cambrian explosion occurred about 530 million years ago. More recent discoveries in China showed that the new phyla — for example arthropods, chordates, and brachiopods — appeared within a ten-million-year period. Others say the “explosive†period took only 5 to 6 million years. Compared with the reported three-billion year history of life on earth, the Cambrian explosion is the equivalent of just a few minutes in a 24-hour day. It happened in a geological blink."

 

"No plausible ancestors have yet been found in lower strata"

 

"Donn Rosen, a curator of ichthyology at the American Museum of Natural History, wryly summarized what is involved: “Darwin said that speciation occurred too slowly for us to see it. Gould and Eldredge said it occurred too quickly for us to see it. Either way we don’t see it.â€

 

"The geneticist Hermann J. Muller, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1946, bombarded fruit flies with X-rays, which he thought would “speed up evolution.†But nothing came of it. Fruit flies not killed by the X-rays remained fruit flies. Also, mutations that occur early in embryonic development are always lethal — generating “dead animals incapable of further evolution,†as Meyer writes. Late-acting mutations may be viable, but these “do not affect global animal architectures.†Hence the Darwinian dilemma: “Major changes are not viable; viable changes are not major.â€

 

"If a correct scientific theory is pursued, we expect new knowledge to comport with the theory. Yet recent discoveries, especially in molecular biology, were not foreseen and have weakened Darwinism."

 

"...if Nagel’s doubts about materialism hold up (and few laymen really accept materialism in the first place, because it denies free will and we know that consciousness is real), then the idea that there never was much to support Darwinism may one day be accepted. It was extrapolated from the observed facts of variation; it was assumed but has never been demonstrated."

 

There's a lot more juicy stuff in the article. So, please, do what all evolutionists claim we Christians never do -- read and become educated about something you really don't understand or know; you just fear it.

It's really not juicy at all. You bolded things you thought were particularily impressive but they are, in fact, misleading.

 

It starts out oddly. The many criticisms of the books are dismissed as, "what can only be called hate," and quotes from those criticisms are limited to one of two words pulled out of context. Donald Prothero in particular gets targeted but his review, while harsh, is well argued and supported. You don't get that impression, or even a link to the review so you can judge for yourself, in that article. While the opposing side has been grouped into an anonymous hateful group the blurb-providers are named and counted to create an appearance of weight. So what? So Mr. Meyer might have found the only 15 people in the scientific world that agree with him and had them right blurbs. It means little. If one wants to play that game then those 15 need to be lined up against the vast community of scientists out there that would likely have huge problems with Mr. Meyer's book, no? The only value of that bit is to highlight the author's biases.

 

Then more names are highlighted.

 

Donn Rosen died in 1986. I could find no verification of the comment the article's author claimed or any context of the conversation to better evaluate what his comment meant. Judging from what information I could find on him he fully accepted evolution. Full stop. Period.

 

The same is the case with Hermann J. Muller. Although the out-of context quote seems to imply something favourable to the author, Muller was the author of a forceful essay entitled One Hundred Fifty Years Without Darwin Are Enough! which argues against ID and concludes with the following;

The theory of evolution conveys chance and necessity jointly intricated in the stuff of life; contingency and determinism interlocked in a natural process that has spurted the most complex, diverse, and beautiful entities in the universe: the organisms that populate the earth, including humans who think and love, endowed with free will and creative powers, and able to analyze the process of evolution itself that brought them into existence. This was Darwin's fundamental discovery, that there is a process that is creative though not conscious. And this is the conceptual revolution that Darwin completed: that everything in nature, including the “design†of living organisms, can be accounted for as the result of natural processes governed by natural laws.

 

The author goes on to abuse names. Nagel does talk about teleological implications in science but the man is a philosopher. His arguments are not scientific(Violet Crown gave a nice demonstration of how philosophy and science can part ways at times). They're certainly welcome but his work does nothing to support ID in any scientific sense, least of all any actual evidence.

 

Poor Colin Patterson gets abused in the same fashion with this bit;

A generation ago, Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, said in a public forum that he didn’t know of any evidence for evolution. There was some grumbling, but he knew that the crucial evidence was missing.

 

The problem, of course, is that he never said that. He said something that was interpreted to mean that but it has since been revealed he meant nothing of the sort. It took me a minute with Google to discover that bit. I'm mystified as to why the author of that article couldn't have done the same with that quote and all the other names he threw around. Instead he settled for misrepresenting what those people believed and accepted and counted on the fact that people reading the article would find the simple presence of the names impressive and not investigate further.

 

Based on the reviews I've seen of his book, Stephen Meyer seems to have a very similar approach as the author of that article.

 

None of the above surprised me. It's something I've come to expect with ID/creationist sites and resources. Misquotes, missing, poor and/or misleading citations, claims recylcled despite being dismissed or disproved long ago...It happens again and again.

[Corraleno]

No, that is not what I'm saying specifically.  What I am trying to convey, not well apparently, is that science has suppressed and does actively try to suppress anyone, be they fellow scientists or professors, etc., who would dare to suggest that the evidence no longer supports Darwinian Evolution but actually is proving to slant more towards intelligent design.  Look at the effort going into suppressing the learning of an alternate theory (ID), which is gaining traction with many biologists/microbiologists, from being included in TX textbooks for heavens sakes.  Heaven forbid we question the status quo.  It's ironic when science is supposed to ask questions and seek truth wherever it may lead.

 

I could substitute "Evangelical Christianity" for "science" in your post, and ask exactly the same questions of you:

 

"Evangelical Christianity has suppressed and does actively try to suppress anyone, be they fellow Christians, etc., who would dare to suggest that the evidence no longer supports literal Creationism but actually is proving to slant more towards evolution.  Look at the effort going into suppressing the learning of an alternate theory (evolution), which has gained traction with the VAST majority of scientists — and the majority of Christians worldwide — from being included in Evangelical Christian textbooks for heavens sakes.  Heaven forbid we question the status quo.  It's ironic when religion is supposed to ask questions and seek truth wherever it may lead."

 

So why isn't the theory of evolution taught in Sunday Schools, so that children can make up their own minds? And by "the theory of evolution," I mean the actual science, not the ridiculous lies that people like Ken Ham make up. I'm referring to the kind of books that Tracy mentioned reading, which made her realize that much of what she'd been taught about ToE was completely false. Heaven forbid that literal creationists question the status quo, even though they claim to be seeking "truth." 

 

Jackie

[WishboneDawn]

The point isn't to teach about a specific religion but to show students that there are other ways to explain how things came to be. The focus of the class will still be evolution, the mention is for students who want to know more about the other beliefs.

The teacher I had pretty much said "creationism is the belief that the world and all things on it was created by a higher being. If you want to know more about it there is a paper on my desk with links to various stories and beliefs"

 

If students want to know about other beliefs, they have other avenues and the science teacher, who's there to teach science and not literature or religion, should be under no obligation whatsoever, to offer them resources on religion or literature. 

 

I don't understand why one would think the science teacher has any obligation to offer that information. I'm a Christian. I would NOT want a science teacher attempting to provide anything about what they think my beliefs might be to my child. 

[justasque]

The major ones (Christianity, Islam...) and what ever minor ones based on the population. In my area it would mainly be the Christian prospective but also Buddhists since we have some of those around. As far as different sects of Christianity, I'm not sure which theories would have differences.

 

Goodness, think of a place like NYC with about a bazillion different religions represented.  Think about fringe religions.  Think about a teacher who doesn't know much about a particular religion and thus doesn't have the background to select appropriate sources to explain that religion's beliefs.  Think about a teacher who has strong beliefs of her own, being obligated to treat her beliefs as if they are equal with the beliefs of some fringe cult a child in the class believes in.

There are all kinds of reasons why it's not a good idea to have public school employees teach religion, their own or someone else's.

 

I think a very short "this is science class, there are religious beliefs on these topics also, we will not be covering those, please research them on your own or consult your family and/or clergy for their perspectives" is sufficient.

[Carrie12345]

I think some people hold on to ToE as if it were a religion or cherished dogma.

There has never been a sentence written that has tickled my funny bone more.

[MomtoCandJ]

Goodness, think of a place like NYC with about a bazillion different religions represented. Think about fringe religions. Think about a teacher who doesn't know much about a particular religion and thus doesn't have the background to select appropriate sources to explain that religion's beliefs. Think about a teacher who has strong beliefs of her own, being obligated to treat her beliefs as if they are equal with the beliefs of some fringe cult a child in the class believes in.

There are all kinds of reasons why it's not a good idea to have public school employees teach religion, their own or someone else's.

 

I think a very short "this is science class, there are religious beliefs on these topics also, we will not be covering those, please research them on your own or consult your family and/or clergy for their perspectives" is sufficient.

I agree with the part about larger cities.

Could the teacher at least define creationism in a general way (like I did above) then tell students that of they had any questions to ask their family or religious leader?

I graduated from a very small school where the population was white and Native American so the links my teacher provided were based on our population. I could see where it could lead to large problems in a larger school.

[justasque]

I agree with the part about larger cities. Could the teacher at least define creationism? Like I had said above and then tell students that of they had any questions to ask their family or religious leader?

 

Even in my fairly homogeneous suburb, there are kids who are Catholic, Protestant (various denominations), Quaker, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, and Wiccan.  I don't think I'd trust a public school teacher to be able to accurately convey the creation beliefs of such a wide variety of religions; they just don't have the time to do the research required.    I'd rather they spend their time keeping up with the major working beliefs of the majority of the scientific community, and leave the religious instruction to the religious experts.

 

ETA:  *And* I don't think it would be appropriate to ask, for example, Christian public school teachers to teach, say, Muslim or Wiccan beliefs as if they are equally as valid as Christian beliefs.  

[Julie Smith]

This thread has me thinking of a Science fiction book I recently bought so I could reread it. It isn't about the theory of elevolution, but it is about the believe in a god and how it fits in with being a scientist who studies the past.

 

 

An alien lands in Toronto and visits a museum and asks to see a paleontologist. Turns out that the alien and the other members of his space craft are on a hunt for information about Earth's past to compare it to the past of other planets so they could conclusively prove or disprove the existence of god.

 

 

You can read the first chapter on his website:

http://www.sfwriter.com/sccg.htm

 

I highly recommend it. It could be just my sense of humor, but that first chapter has me laughing out loud at points. 

 

[Mergath]

The major ones (Christianity, Islam...) and what ever minor ones based on the population. In my area it would mainly be the Christian prospective but also Buddhists since we have some of those around. As far as different sects of Christianity, I'm not sure which theories would have differences.

I find it hilarious that you consider Christianity a major religion, and Buddhism a minor one. Geography certainly does shape our perceptions, doesn't it?

[MomtoCandJ]

I find it hilarious that you consider Christianity a major religion, and Buddhism a minor one. Geography certainly does shape our perceptions, doesn't it?

Yes, it certainly does :)

[justasque]

I agree with the part about larger cities.

Could the teacher at least define creationism in a general way (like I did above) then tell students that of they had any questions to ask their family or religious leader?

I graduated from a very small school where the population was white and Native American so the links my teacher provided were based on our population. I could see where it could lead to large problems in a larger school.

 

I think the most they could reasonably be expected to do would be to say "Different cultures and religions have different beliefs about the origin of our world and the life within it."  Once you get into definitions, you get into the teacher interpreting religious beliefs (including those she may not share, and/or may not know much about, and/or may actually have strong beliefs *against*), and that's where the trouble begins.

[Nancy Ann]

There has never been a sentence written that has tickled my funny bone more.

You give me too much credit, there are thousands more funnier sentences than that!

[FaithManor]

Even in my fairly homogeneous suburb, there are kids who are Catholic, Protestant (various denominations), Quaker, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, and Wiccan.  I don't think I'd trust a public school teacher to be able to accurately convey the creation beliefs of such a wide variety of religions; they just don't have the time to do the research required.    I'd rather they spend their time keeping up with the major working beliefs of the majority of the scientific community, and leave the religious instruction to the religious experts.

 

ETA:  *And* I don't think it would be appropriate to ask, for example, Christian public school teachers to teach, say, Muslim or Wiccan beliefs as if they are equally as valid as Christian beliefs.  

Yes, thank you this!

 

I cannot possibly imagine the Pandora's Box that would be opened if my local school district's already abysmal science program took on such an endeavor. It.just.does.not.bear.thinking.about.

 

Faith

[Guest submarines]

Also, I'm still anxiously awaiting an explanation for why whales have vestigial leg bones if they've always been whales.  Anyone?

I was told whales were created this way in order to test our faith. 

[albeto.]

None of the above surprised me. It's something I've come to expect with ID/creationist sites and resources. Misquotes, missing, poor and/or misleading citations, claims recylcled despite being dismissed or disproved long ago...It happens again and again.

 

In every conversation I've had, this really is the tactic used, again and again. It is the only one, and frightfully effective. Not only are scientists misquoted and misrepresented like you point out, but scientific information is often misrepresented. Carbon dating is probably the most popular tool to be misapplied for the purpose of setting up a false claim and tearing it down. The average adult doesn't know the details of radiometric science, so why wouldn't she trust the person who has always made sense to her before? So the adult has been duped, and the teacher, or home educator, teaches a false concept to the student in turn. The schools that exist to provide a free and appropriate education to American citizens should be free from this false teaching. The people who run these school districts ought to know better. Clearly they don't. They cannot be trusted, and it's not just a few kids who miss out. An uneducated society is detrimental to us all. Our entire nation benefits when our children are educated and encouraged to pursue the accurate answers to their natural curiosities. As Bill Nye said, " if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems." (link)

[Nancy Ann]

I'll be clear then. Science, including ToE, cannot be used to show there is no higher power. Anyone who says it it can is committing a logical fallacy, so there's no reason to even have to whimsically reflect upon the dynamic nature of science. Now, if one's idea of a god includes the notion that it either *must* have done very specific things under very specific parameters OR it must not exist, that can be a problem when dealing with science. But science can't prove there are no gods.

 

Much of the conversations that happen between people are not purely scientific. There are those who are atheists and those who are religious who use the topic of evolution and other concepts to beat each other up.

 

I agree that science cannot prove God does not exist.  Yet, so many people try to wield it to say that and thump others over the head. Of course religious people do similar. It is a natural human tendency to be defensive when we believe in something strongly. The problem comes when people can't show humility along with their strength of opinion.

 

I was told once by my English professor in college that God needs defending like a lion in a cage. It has stuck with me ever since. 

[albeto.]

For me personally, what happens in the scientific world has little to do with my religious beliefs. The belief of God, specifically the God of Abraham that is also believed by those of Jewish and Muslim faith, has been around a lot longer than ToE and will be around a lot longer when/if ToE goes by the way side for something new.

 

I think the reality is the belief in the judeo-christian god is not going to be around much longer. It's following the same trajectory as the greek and norse mythological gods, and that makes believers anxious. I think that's why there is such a (desperate?) desire to find some compelling reason to take it seriously, to keep it relevant. It used to be religious believers didn't have to use science to support their beliefs. As information increases, religious theories change. God created fossils to test one's faith. Wait, no, the fossils were a result of the Great Flood. Or wait, the fossils do reveal the age of the earth, but God is the real source of the Big Bang. 

 

Well? Which is it? If religion answers the questions about how we got here, why nature looks and works as it does, then what is the answer? If religion can't be trusted to know the answer, and has to keep changing it to keep up with evidence, then in the words of Stephen Fry, "What is it good for?"

[Nancy Ann]

I find it hilarious that you consider Christianity a major religion, and Buddhism a minor one. Geography certainly does shape our perceptions, doesn't it?

 

 

You guys really have a strange sense of humor on these boards. So many things many of you find hilarious that are not really all that funny. :)  

 

Anyway.... what makes something a major or minor religion is extraordinarily complicated. Here is something that shows the basic population and percent of religions. Obviously geography does have something to do with it, but this article shows basic population and percent. Christianity still has more population than any other religion or non religion. Buddhism is quite high as well. I really don't know how one would consider a major vs minor religion. 

 

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

[Nancy Ann]

I think the reality is the belief in the judeo-christian god is not going to be around much longer. It's following the same trajectory as the greek and norse mythological gods, and that makes believers anxious. I think that's why there is such a (desperate?) desire to find some compelling reason to take it seriously, to keep it relevant. It used to be religious believers didn't have to use science to support their beliefs. As information increases, religious theories change. God created fossils to test one's faith. Wait, no, the fossils were a result of the Great Flood. Or wait, the fossils do reveal the age of the earth, but God is the real source of the Big Bang. 

 

Well? Which is it? If religion answers the questions about how we got here, why nature looks and works as it does, then what is the answer? If religion can't be trusted to know the answer, and has to keep changing it to keep up with evidence, then in the words of Stephen Fry, "What is it good for?"

 

I cannot deny that in 100 years from now there may be less people who believe in God or are Christian. For me, however, that does not mean He does not exist.  Popularity of opinion or common beliefs certainly does not make something true. There will always be a remnant. In the bible when Elijah had lost hope God showed him a remnant of believers. In the bible Daniel was in the minority and he is a great mentor for those of us who find ourselves in a similar circumstance. 

 

I think trying to use science to prove God is a big mistake religious people are making. But, judging God based on human error or human stupidity is also a big mistake. 

[nmoira]

Much of the conversations that happen between people are not purely scientific. There are those who are atheists and those who are religious who use the topic of evolution and other concepts to beat each other up.

 

I agree that science cannot prove God does not exist. Yet, so many people try to wield it to say that and thump others over the head. Of course religious people do similar. It is a natural human tendency to be defensive when we believe in something strongly. The problem comes when people can't show humility along with their strength of opinion.

 

I was told once by my English professor in college that God needs defending like a lion in a cage. It has stuck with me ever since.

This is a thread about science standards and textbooks. ETA: And what is appropriate wrt these.

[amsunshine]

I was told whales were created this way in order to test our faith. 

I love it.  God has a sense of humor, apparently.

[Nancy Ann]

This is a thread about science standards and textbooks.

 

 

Yes, and threads ALWAYS stay on topic and don't meander! :) I think my comments fit with conversation we had and various comments on the board. 

[nmoira]

Yes, and threads ALWAYS stay on topic and don't meander! :) I think my comments fit with conversation we had and various comments on the board.

Of course. But we're coming from the side of science standards and not from the larger non-scientific community. If someone thinks ToE can be used to disprove the existence of supernatural powers (or that the existence of a god would necessarily preclude ToE), more and better education is called for, not just in science.

[nmoira]

I love it. God has a sense of humor, apparently.

Great. Now I can't get Depeche Mode out of my head. I hate Depeche Mode.

[albeto.]

I cannot deny that in 100 years from now there may be less people who believe in God or are Christian. For me, however, that does not mean He does not exist.  Popularity of opinion or common beliefs certainly does not make something true. There will always be a remnant. In the bible when Elijah had lost hope God showed him a remnant of believers. In the bible Daniel was in the minority and he is a great mentor for those of us who find ourselves in a similar circumstance. 

 

I think trying to use science to prove God is a big mistake religious people are making. But, judging God based on human error or human stupidity is also a big mistake. 

 

I don't think people reject religious claims based on human error or human stupidity, but on the credibility of the claims themselves. For example, archaeological research has yet to find support of much, if not any, of the claims made in the Five Books of Moses, the Torah, or the Pentateuch. Who, or what, did these characters (Elijah and Daniel) base their own faiths upon? There was no Abraham, no Isaac, no Jacob/Israel, no Joseph with the coat of many colors, no Moses. There is no evidence of Israeli captivity by the Egyptians, no hint of travel through the desert by this tribe of people. 

 

 In all likelihood, Elijah and Daniel were also heroic characters in fantastic stories passed down from generation to generation, and nothing attributed to them ever happened. In any case, it's increasingly more difficult to believe religious claims based on characters and events that never, and likely never existed.  It's the same pattern we see with the decline of worship of Zeus after it was well established that the top of Mt Olympus never had a temple or housed any gods at all. 

 

As people become familiar with the history of the ancient near east, as they did with the top of Mount Olympus, these stories will be increasingly relegated to allegorical. Eventually, they'll stop serving even that function. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, will likely continue finding support and confirmation in increasingly developing  fields of science. 

[Guest submarines]

I grew up being taught the theory of evolution and I my knee jerk reaction is to laugh at the idea that creationism could be taught as science. I haven't read anything in depth about evolution since college, but this is what I believe and this is what I teach my children. 

 

However, I won't deny that whenever I read about evolution and start thinking about it, the gaps and assumptions always leave me wondering about it. And don't even start me on quantum physics. 

 

This said, the idea of creationism has even more gaps and assumptions. 

 

I have a question to those who believe in the theory of evolution. Is this solid and clear cut to you, or do you see gaps in the theory that make you wonder? 

[albeto.]

I grew up being taught the theory of evolution and I my knee jerk reaction is to laugh at the idea that creationism could be taught as science. I haven't read anything in depth about evolution since college, but this is what I believe and this is what I teach my children. 

 

However, I won't deny that whenever I read about evolution and start thinking about it, the gaps and assumptions always leave me wondering about it. And don't even start me on quantum physics. 

 

This said, the idea of creationism has even more gaps and assumptions. 

 

I have a question to those who believe in the theory of evolution. Is this solid and clear cut to you, or do you see gaps in the theory that make you wonder? 

 

This kind of comment suggests that if a richly diverse field of knowledge that incorporates dozens of specialized fields, each with hundreds of specializations therein, doesn't make sense you you personally, it's not likely to be true. That's not how the scientific method works, it's not how knowledge and education work.

 

In answer to your question, the theory of evolution is not a belief. One doesn't believe in it the way they believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa,  Allah, or Mary the mother of God. One either understands it, or does not. Yes, I have a basic understanding of the theory of evolution. No, I do not know all the intricacies. Yes, I recognize that unexplained details are fascinating opportunities for further exploration. Yes, I recognize this does not negate the theory of evolution.

[Nancy Ann]

I don't think people reject religious claims based on human error or human stupidity, but on the credibility of the claims themselves. For example, archaeological research has yet to find support of much, if not any, of the claims made in the Five Books of Moses, the Torah, or the Pentateuch. Who, or what, did these characters (Elijah and Daniel) base their own faiths upon? There was no Abraham, no Isaac, no Jacob/Israel, no Joseph with the coat of many colors, no Moses. There is no evidence of Israeli captivity by the Egyptians, no hint of travel through the desert by this tribe of people. 

 

 In all likelihood, Elijah and Daniel were also heroic characters in fantastic stories passed down from generation to generation, and nothing attributed to them ever happened. In any case, it's increasingly more difficult to believe religious claims based on characters and events that never, and likely never existed.  It's the same pattern we see with the decline of worship of Zeus after it was well established that the top of Mt Olympus never had a temple or housed any gods at all. 

 

As people become familiar with the history of the ancient near east, as they did with the top of Mount Olympus, these stories will be increasingly relegated to allegorical. Eventually, they'll stop serving even that function. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, will likely continue finding support and confirmation in increasingly developing  fields of science. 

 

Albeto, 

 

I am not getting into a debate with you about the bible and existence of God. It's not that I can't. I can certainly hold my own when it comes to these topics and when it comes to historical and scientific facts about these topics. But, the truth is we will go around and around and get no where. The result will be my anxiety will go WAY up and I won't get supper going tonight and we will end up having take out! :) Hmmmm...take out sounds good!:)

 

When Jesus walked this earth and performed miracles in front of peoples eyes and walked among us, people did not believe. I doubt very much any of my words will convince you of anything or give you any insight. I am not sure God can be approached in an intellectual way. I really am not sure how people come to God. I have struggled and been confused but intellectual argument has very rarely been what brought me back or helped me out. It was prayer. Praying even when I thought no one was there to listen. 

[chiguirre]

I have exactly one cat.

My cat is over there.

Therefore, my cat is not in the box (not not-there).

 

Unless that's Schrodinger's cat!

 

;)

[albeto.]

Albeto, 

I am not getting into a debate with you about the bible and existence of God. It's not that I can't. I can certainly hold my own when it comes to these topics and when it comes to historical and scientific facts about these topics. But, the truth is we will go around and around and get no where. The result will be my anxiety will go WAY up and I won't get supper going tonight and we will end up having take out! :) Hmmmm...take out sounds good! :)

 

When Jesus walked this earth and performed miracles in front of peoples eyes and walked among us, people did not believe. I doubt very much any of my words will convince you of anything or give you any insight. I am not sure God can be approached in an intellectual way. I really am not sure how people come to God. I have struggled and been confused but intellectual argument has very rarely been what brought me back or helped me out. It was prayer. Praying even when I thought no one was there to listen.

 

This isn't how information is gained or passed, however. It shouldn't be a part of the educational system in the United States!

 

But all in all, I do understand your point. It's not my intention to turn this into a religious discussion, but to comment on your thoughts here:

 

 

For me personally, what happens in the scientific world has little to do with my religious beliefs. The belief of God, specifically the God of Abraham that is also believed by those of Jewish and Muslim faith, has been around a lot longer than ToE and will be around a lot longer when/if ToE goes by the way side for something new.

 

I think this shows a lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution is, and how the scientific method actually works. Although I personally think it also shows a lack of historical knowledge regarding biblical claims, that's not the point I'm trying to make. Discussing the merits of science for the sake of education is really important, and for this reason I think it's vital that we have people who really do know how the scientific method works. The Texas Board of Education simply doesn't have representatives that can do that, clearly, or they wouldn't be voting on adding creationism to public education!