Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate

[Walking-Iris]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271383099/creationism-vs-evolution-the-debate-is-live-tonight

 

Forgive me if this has been posted. I haven't watched it yet. 

[OneStepAtATime]

Nor have I.  But there is a lot of discussion over on the chat board.

[Walking-Iris]

Nor have I.  But there is a lot of discussion over on the chat board.

 

yeah I assumed as much.....but seeing as I avoid the chat board like the plague.

 

Maybe a moderator can move it then.

 

LOL

 

Just thought it would interest people.

[OneStepAtATime]

Chuckle... I should avoid it, too.  Thanks for the post, though.  Safer to dip a toe in here and peak than over there.  I've been afraid to... :)

[CrystalM]

My dh and I were watching it on YouTube tonight. We feel Ken Ham won the debate after their first 30 minute arguments because Ken actually addressed all of Bill's questions. He continued doing this throughout the rebuttal and question/answer sections. We particularly loved Ken's comments "Bill actually there is a book that tells us..." Too funny.

[Freckles]

My dh and I enjoyed watching the debate. I'm not sure anybody can "win" in this scenario, but I did feel Mr. Ham was more eloquent with his opening remarks. My view is that when you have two people with different world views all they can really do is educate the masses on those world views. Both sides take faith to believe in whether that is acknowledged or not. Thanks for giving me a "safe" place to give my two cents. There was no way I was going to say anything on the chat board.

[kiwik]

I am not in the US but it seems to me they may go on forever.

[Walking-Iris]

I don't think anyone can win it either.

 

There's just basic science and then there's religious worldviews. And Ham holds a worldview that is within a bigger worldview...so...not even all the people who share even a fraction of his worldview are going to agree with him either.

 

 

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Slate ran several opinion pieces, but I found this one to be rather level-headed, and breaks it down further by trying to define just whose religion are we discussing, and why is it, or how did we get to the point of science and one portion of one religion being at odds anyway?

 

He mentions Pope JP II,"....who, one must admit, was a deeply religious man—saying that evolution was an established fact. Clearly, not all religion has a problem with evolution. Given that a quarter of U.S. citizens are Catholics, this shows Ham’s claim that evolution is anti-religious to be wrong."

 

[La Texican]

Slate ran several opinion pieces, but I found this one to be rather level-headed, and breaks it down further by trying to define just whose religion are we discussing, and why is it, or how did we get to the point of science and one portion of one religion being at odds anyway?

 

He mentions Pope JP II,"....who, one must admit, was a deeply religious man—saying that evolution was an established fact. Clearly, not all religion has a problem with evolution. Given that a quarter of U.S. citizens are Catholics, this shows Ham’s claim that evolution is anti-religious to be wrong."

Your Slate link is only bringing me back to this thread. I wanted to read it because I'm interested in finding out if evolution is really a religion or belief system in any way, or if that's said as a debate tactic.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Your Slate link is only bringing me back to this thread. I wanted to read it because I'm interested in finding out if evolution is really a religion or belief system in any way, or if that's said as a debate tactic.

 

 

Why so it is!

 

My bad on the cut n paste.

 

Try THIS link.

 

Edit -- here's the long URL:  http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/05/creationism_debate_should_we_engage_anti_science.html

[Walking-Iris]

Your Slate link is only bringing me back to this thread. I wanted to read it because I'm interested in finding out if evolution is really a religion or belief system in any way, or if that's said as a debate tactic.

 

Well, I'm a theistic evolutionist. And I hate that term. I generally just hate labels of any sort because so many assumptions get put on you like baggage. But it's the quickest way to convey that I am somewhat religious but have no issue with science.

 

But---I have said it so many times to people who have asked. I don't "believe" in evolution any more than I "believe" in electricity or "believe" in gravity or "believe" in ...I don't know...plant life cycles.....

 

I have a personal spirituality and there are things I most certainly do "believe" in, but science isn't one of them. I have had it thrown at me at times that it takes a sort of faith to "believe" in evolution....but no it doesn't. Just from my own personal experience. Studying biology I haven't ever felt any sort of conflict between science and my personal beliefs.

 

Now I'm sure that some people do feel a conflict for whatever reasons. I don't think there needs to be one. 

 

Definition of religion is the belief and worship of a superhuman controlling power. There's no superhuman controlling power in evolution or science. Religion is also a set of beliefs about the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe. Now evolution may set forth a type of cause agent of things, but science doesn't say anything about the nature of the universe (is it forgiving, benevolent...and so on) or the purpose of it. Why are we here? Science doesn't (can't even!) answer those questions. And it's why I cringe inside when an atheist may say "science is my religion"---oh really how so? How can that be? 

 

I've been told that evolution is naturalism---the worship of nature. But that's a lot of bull too. There's no worship, no sacraments, no services, no holy days...

 

A person could observe nature and have no worship of it. You may go out and grow a tomato, understand the genetics of tomatoes, the soil composition needed, the chemistry of the nutrients in a tomato, the hereditary lineage of the type of tomato you are growing...but have absolutely zero spiritual feelings for it.

 

You can understand all of that science and still thank God for the food. Or you may be Shinto and respect what you feel is a "spirit" in that living plant. And so on. We can even make up a religion that has a festival of the tomatoes, places the tomato on an altar, has a story of how the tomato came to earth for our benefit. But all these different beliefs about the tomato won't...can't...change the basic underlying science of how it grows. 

 

I like religions. I like reading about them and studying them. But I can't see why there has to be conflict. I think it's fine if someone doesn't want to believe in something. Sort of how the Amish don't use technology. That's fine. But you can't insist that the rest of of learn why electricity is bad. I don't need children to be taught in schools there's another option, another opinion on the use of electricity. Parents need to do that. That's their job, not a public school teachers. "yes that's the way electricity works, but we don't believe in that in this family and here's why...." 

 

That's my main issue with Ken Ham and others like him. They can't just be happy with their worldview...it needs to be pressed on other people, and they argue that science is a worldview pressed on others. But it's not. It's simply the way the world works, and it's a dynamic thing we are learning more about all the time. They are worried learning about certain science topics will cause their children to give up their religion. Well unless someone were twisting the child's arm so to speak why would it? Why would you want your children purposely ignorant of such a huge part of the world they live in? It's not the school's job to teach religion, and unless you have some crazy teacher making people bow to the image of Darwin or something----teaching science simply isn't religion. 

 

There are just too many viewpoints about the beginning of it all and the whys of the universe to take this one tiny sect of Christianity as the authority on it. It would waste time. If we have to put origins in the science classes, then we need to include all religious origins beliefs and now suddenly you're not in a high school biology class anymore it's a theological seminary. ;) 

 

They want "freedom" to share their views, but they are not willing to give any other Creationist a seat at that table. It's YEC Biblical worldview---that's it. Not Catholics, Muslims, Judaism, Buddhist, Jains, Shintos and so on. No...just this one man and his group and those that read that and believe it. They do have freedom to share their views. It's all over the web with just a simple Google search. But it's political I think. They want to change the basic worldview of our political feelings in this country. That's why they harp on about what is taught in schools.

 

There's no interfaith dialogue here about how to interpret science. It's either-or. Evolution or Ken Ham. That's why I cringe when he uses the word Creationist to mean his particular version of it. There's more to the world's belief systems about origins than just that. 

 

We can't go and start mixing religion and government schools and politics....nothing good ever happens in history from doing that.

[redsquirrel]

How could evolution be a religion? That is like claiming plate tectonics is a religion, meteorology is a religion.

 

And plenty of religious folks find that their religion and science coexist very nicely. 

[RootAnn]

Clearly, not all religion has a problem with evolution. Given that a quarter of U.S. citizens are Catholics, this shows Ham’s claim that evolution is anti-religious to be wrong."

 

But I wonder if Mr. Ham believes Catholics fall under that whole 'religious' umbrella. We're pretty much the Whore of Babylon, aren't we? 

 

Because evolution doesn't fall under matters of faith or morals, Catholics aren't required to agree with what any pope says on that topic. Some do; some don't. We're a motley group.

 

I avoided that debate like the plague, but couldn't get myself to stay away from this one thread.  :huh:

[PeterPan]

Your Slate link is only bringing me back to this thread. I wanted to read it because I'm interested in finding out if evolution is really a religion or belief system in any way, or if that's said as a debate tactic.

Well that was what was so interesting (to me) about the debate, because I had heard *creationists* characterize evolution as a religion but hadn't actually heard an *evolutionist* present it that way.  Dunno how it struck others, but Bill Nye's position sure seemed to involve a lot of faith and presuppositions.  It came across almost Borg-like, this "believe our way or you're not on board with science and progress..."  By the end Kentuckians had been told if they didn't believe in evolution and get on board they were dooming their economy, the technological future of America, their future health care options, etc. etc.  Clearly only idiots and Kentuckians would still hold to backward creationism in BN's view.  Sorta made me wonder what Kentuckians thought of being characterized that way by him.  ;)

[OneStepAtATime]

Don't go anywhere near the chat board.  It got ugly over there....and may still be going on.  Why did I even look?

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

But I wonder if Mr. Ham believes Catholics fall under that whole 'religious' umbrella. We're pretty much the Whore of Babylon, aren't we?

 

Because evolution doesn't fall under matters of faith or morals, Catholics aren't required to agree with what any pope says on that topic. Some do; some don't. We're a motley group.

 

I avoided that debate like the plague, but couldn't get myself to stay away from this one thread. :huh:

Which comes right back around to who gets do decide what the right kind of Christian is, which doesn't sound very Christian. Orwellian, yes.

[IsabelC]

Clearly, each individual Christian person is responsible for choosing what kind of Christian she/he is. But although precise stats are difficult to come by, I think it's worth knowing some rough figures on how the YEC vs non-YEC numbers break down, simply because it is misinformed to suppose that YEC is a commonly held belief within the Christian faith as a whole. The majority of Christians, world-wide, don't agree with Ham and his colleagues, in fact YE creationists like him would be viewed as a fringe group (to put it politely) everywhere outside the US.  

[IsabelC]

Dangnabbit, just spent ages on a really well though out response and my computer vaporized it :(

 

But to cut a long story short, no, there isn't anybody other than creationists who would ever refer to Nye's side of the "debate" as coming from a religious or faith-based point of view.

[Stars]

 

But---I have said it so many times to people who have asked. I don't "believe" in evolution any more than I "believe" in electricity or "believe" in gravity or "believe" in ...I don't know...plant life cycles.....

 

. . .I like religions. I like reading about them and studying them. But I can't see why there has to be conflict. I think it's fine if someone doesn't want to believe in something. Sort of how the Amish don't use technology. That's fine. But you can't insist that the rest of of learn why electricity is bad. I don't need children to be taught in schools there's another option, another opinion on the use of electricity. Parents need to do that. That's their job, not a public school teachers. "yes that's the way electricity works, but we don't believe in that in this family and here's why...." 

 

 

I'll chime in as a YEC.  Personally, I think the issue for us is not so much science v. religion, but rather the conviction that what is being presented to us and our children as "science" has been carefully edited to exclude the possibility of a Creator.  For example, I read recently about the discovery of a fossilized miner's hat (the existence of which, if the account is true, would support some aspects of YEC).  This is something that would never be presented in a PS textbook, not necessarily because the editors are Godless heathens bent on corrupting the young, but at the very least because it would -- how to put it? -- maybe "disrupt the narrative flow".

 

I kind of view it like the Vaccination Debate.  Is there a truth whether vaccinating children hurts them or is good for them?  Yes.  Is there information to support either viewpoint?  You betcha.  At some point, though, I chose which viewpoint to accept and which to reject, based on my own criteria (we vaccinated).  In that debate, as well as in the debate over our origin, I just don't want to feel cheated out of the other side of the story.  And since I believe that the Bible is the source of absolute truth, the viewpoint I choose to accept is going to be the one that most closely matches the Bible's account.  

 

I realize this is a volatile subject and I hope not to have been offensive in giving my opinion.  I do not wish to debate, myself.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

 

I'll chime in as a YEC.  Personally, I think the issue for us is not so much science v. religion, but rather the conviction that what is being presented to us and our children as "science" has been carefully edited to exclude the possibility of a Creator.  For example, I read recently about the discovery of a fossilized miner's hat (the existence of which, if the account is true, would support some aspects of YEC).  This is something that would never be presented in a PS textbook, not necessarily because the editors are Godless heathens bent on corrupting the young, but at the very least because it would -- how to put it? -- maybe "disrupt the narrative flow".

 

 

 

Re: Miner's Hat...

 

[Χά�ων]

Re: Miner's Hat...

 

 

That video completely discounts the Alien Intervention Theory :(

 

Here is my rebuttal in support of AIT

[Walking-Iris]

 

But---I have said it so many times to people who have asked. I don't "believe" in evolution any more than I "believe" in electricity or "believe" in gravity or "believe" in ...I don't know...plant life cycles.....

 

. . .I like religions. I like reading about them and studying them. But I can't see why there has to be conflict. I think it's fine if someone doesn't want to believe in something. Sort of how the Amish don't use technology. That's fine. But you can't insist that the rest of of learn why electricity is bad. I don't need children to be taught in schools there's another option, another opinion on the use of electricity. Parents need to do that. That's their job, not a public school teachers. "yes that's the way electricity works, but we don't believe in that in this family and here's why...." 

 

 

I'll chime in as a YEC.  Personally, I think the issue for us is not so much science v. religion, but rather the conviction that what is being presented to us and our children as "science" has been carefully edited to exclude the possibility of a Creator.  For example, I read recently about the discovery of a fossilized miner's hat (the existence of which, if the account is true, would support some aspects of YEC).  This is something that would never be presented in a PS textbook, not necessarily because the editors are Godless heathens bent on corrupting the young, but at the very least because it would -- how to put it? -- maybe "disrupt the narrative flow".

 

I kind of view it like the Vaccination Debate.  Is there a truth whether vaccinating children hurts them or is good for them?  Yes.  Is there information to support either viewpoint?  You betcha.  At some point, though, I chose which viewpoint to accept and which to reject, based on my own criteria (we vaccinated).  In that debate, as well as in the debate over our origin, I just don't want to feel cheated out of the other side of the story.  And since I believe that the Bible is the source of absolute truth, the viewpoint I choose to accept is going to be the one that most closely matches the Bible's account.  

 

I realize this is a volatile subject and I hope not to have been offensive in giving my opinion.  I do not wish to debate, myself.

 

 

No, textbooks are not being carefully edited to exclude one particular religious belief. They are being edited to include science and not religion. We have this thing in this country---a very good thing actually---called separation of Church and State. Just a quick review of England's history can explain why our Founding Fathers included the idea of no establishment of a religion in government. Countries have been devastated...still are being devastated...with ongoing strife that has at the root of it all an intolerance based on religious viewpoints. Because nothing nice ever....ever...happens in history when the two mix. Politics and religion. 

 

I pay taxes for my local school. And although I homeschool and don't use that school, I do not want my tax dollars going to support a religious viewpoint. Any religious viewpoint. I want them learning about comparative religions, yes. But on neutral territory. And I don't want kids learning about Buddhism, Islam, or Christianity in the science class.

 

I especially don't want them learning, on my dime, that one holy book among all the religion's holy books is the authority that we look to to interpret the natural world.

 

That's why Ken Ham failed here, and will continue to fail here. He's simply not talking about science, he's looking to the natural world to validate his belief system and expecting the rest of us to follow. It takes a gross amount of hubris honestly to put yourself in that position.

 

You can't quote religious literature as scientific authority. I could just as easily dig into the Koran or the Baghavad Gita and do the same thing. But we don't do that...do we? Ken Ham isn't really interested in interfaith dialogue. 

 

I don't understand why a public school needs to acknowledge just Christianity as a valid worldview. There are Buddhist, atheist, Muslim, Native American, Hindu, and so on and so on...children sitting in any one classroom in varying amounts. 

 

Why do they have "to be cheated" to use your phrase of their worldview in their classes as well? You just never see that do you...Buddhists campaigning for meditation in school? Because they get it! They teach their children their family values in the home, they don't expect the state to do it. 

 

The problem with some of the science in the YEC arena is the biased nature of it. Christians have this habit of filtering everything through their worldview....from the movies or music they allow themselves to watch and listen to, the books they read, etc. 

 

Most everything has to have a Christian flavor to it. And then they "cheat themselves" of the other side of the story. 

[WishboneDawn]

Stars - I think you've hit on something important with the  a creator being excluded from science texts. I don't think talking about a seperation of church and state, as Walking Iris did, really addresses it.

Science is limited in its scope. It can only address the natural world. It's tools are limited to our senses and extensions of those senses and what we can observe and manipulate and measure with those. A supernatural creator is, by definition, beyond that. Science can have nothing to say and the proper tools for exploring a creator are philosophy and theology.

Science has clear limits. I think it's in religion's best interest to honor them rather then expect science to address theological issues. It's rather like trying to pound a nail with a hacksaw to my mind.

 

Edited to heal the wounds inflicted by my phone's autocorrect.

[Cricket]

Stars - I think you've hit on something important with the but about a creator being excluded from science texts. I don't think talking about aspiration of church and state, as Walking Iris did, really addresses it.

 

Science is limited in its scope. It can only address the natural world. It's tools are limited to our sense and extensions of those senses and what we can observe and manipulate and measure with those. A supernatural creator is, by definition, beyond that. Science can have nothing to say and the proper tools for exploring a creator are philosophy and theology.

 

Science has clear limits. I think it's in regions best interest to honor them rather then expect science to address theological issues. It's rather like trying to pound a nail with a hacksaw to my mind

 

I agree with this and wonder if YECers have done a disservice to religion by trying to meld the two.  They end up putting God under the microscope when it just doesn't work that way.  By demanding scientific evidence for a position held by faith, YECers are somehow bowing to the superiority of science, as if science has the final say, when as you point out, science is limited.

[WishboneDawn]

I agree with this and wonder if YECers have done a disservice to religion by trying to meld the two.  They end up putting God under the microscope when it just doesn't work that way.  By demanding scientific evidence for a position held by faith, YECers are somehow bowing to the superiority of science, as if science has the final say, when as you point out, science is limited.

 

I think so but I'd hesitate to generalize to all creationists. There are some here that maintain a creationist perspective as a matter of faith and won't frame it in a scientific manner. And there's some really thoughtful theology that was originally wrapped up in creationism that people like Ken Ham don't seem to simply reject but aren't even aware of. TTC's History of Science course actually had some really good insight into the origins of modern creationism and in one of the other threads in the chat room someone recommended a book that, I think, deals with that. 

[Cricket]

I think so but I'd hesitate to generalize to all creationists. There are some here that maintain a creationist perspective as a matter of faith and won't frame it in a scientific manner. And there's some really thoughtful theology that was originally wrapped up in creationism that people like Ken Ham don't seem to simply reject but aren't even aware of. TTC's History of Science course actually had some really good insight into the origins of modern creationism and in one of the other threads in the chat room someone recommended a book that, I think, deals with that. 

 

I'll have to look for that course.  I'm a bit scared to head back over there though.   :)  

[OneStepAtATime]

goofed up the post...repost later...nm 

 

[kiana]

I agree with this and wonder if YECers have done a disservice to religion by trying to meld the two.  They end up putting God under the microscope when it just doesn't work that way.  By demanding scientific evidence for a position held by faith, YECers are somehow bowing to the superiority of science, as if science has the final say, when as you point out, science is limited.

 

I don't have enough likes for this comment.

[Stars]

Science is limited in its scope. It can only address the natural world. It's tools are limited to our senses and extensions of those senses and what we can observe and manipulate and measure with those. A supernatural creator is, by definition, beyond that. Science can have nothing to say and the proper tools for exploring a creator are philosophy and theology.

 

Science has clear limits. I think it's in religion's best interest to honor them rather then expect science to address theological issues. It's rather like trying to pound a nail with a hacksaw to my mind.

 

I certainly understand the point you are making, but I perceive "science" -- everything and how it got here and works -- as having been made by God; therefore, it should have many things to say about its creator.

 

I completely agree with Walking Iris about its being the parents' job to teach their children their own theological beliefs.  I do not want Creationism taught in schools any more than I want evolution (well, maybe a little more...).  I would prefer that schools not address the issue of origin at all.

 

Conflict makes me uncomfortable.  I probably should never have waded into the fray, but I felt the YECs were underrepresented in the discussion.

[PeterPan]

 I probably should never have waded into the fray, but I felt the YECs were underrepresented in the discussion.

We're here.  We just have been around long enough to know what happens in these threads.  :)

[WishboneDawn]

rtainly understand the point you are making, but I perceive "science" -- everything and how it got here and works -- as having been made by God; therefore, it should have many things to say about its creator.

 

I completely agree with Walking Iris about its being the parents' job to teach their children their own theological beliefs. I do not want Creationism taught in schools any more than I want evolution (well, maybe a little more...). I would prefer that schools not address the issue of origin at all.

 

Conflict makes me uncomfortable. I probably should never have waded into the fray, but I felt the YECs were underrepresented in the discussion.

I'm glad you did and I appreciate you speaking up. I think we lose a lot when we let the tone of these threads become hostile (and I've been guilty of this) so that people don't join the discussion.

 

I understand what you mean in your first paragraph. Although I'm not creationist/ID I even agree to a point, I just don't think it's going to be science that's going to be able to interpret what the world says about God. That's for theology and further, the arts?

 

I think there's a gap between you and me on that but that I'm not quite seeing clearly. But sure how to express that but I'd appreciate any Moore you have to say on that.

 

In your second paragraph I'll point out that evolution is not about origins. It has nothing to say about how life, period, began. It does seek to explain the process by which species evolve which is origins in another way and maybe what you meant. I'm not sure how that could be left out though. It's roots are in so many different aspects of science and it's branches hold up many other pieces. It could still be wrong. A perfectly elegant hypothesis that provides an excellent model can still be wrong, see phlogistan for an example, but absent the luxury of assuming a creator, evolution is the best science can do right now.

 

Thanks for responding.:)

[Walking-Iris]

We're here.  We just have been around long enough to know what happens in these threads.   :)

 

But I don't feel anyone is being hostile or offensive in this thread. It seems to be going well.

 

I think that's the point of the original idea by a pp that maybe these things shouldn't even be discussed, because usually people with a religious belief dig in their heels deep. 

 

Any way it's not like evolution is even really taught in schools to begin with.

 

I never got it in high school. My dh has subbed in the local high school. He doesn't see it.

 

Teachers never really do "find time" to get to that chapter.

 

College is where you learn this science.

 

Which brings up a good point. My Dh is a graduate from Libscomb. A Christian private university. He has memories of his biology professor saying there's no conflict with being a "man of faith and a legitimate scientist." 

 

And YEC wasn't taught in that class. In fact my DH never even heard of such a view on Creation until our interactions with the local co-op. His best friend (devout Christian) pulled his kids out of a VBS because they were teaching YEC. 

 

I have friends who work for Navigators (also homeschoolers) and I've had conversations with them about this....it's not an issue in their lives or Christian faith. They have no conflict with science. 

 

And I can go on. I have so so many Christian friends (from coming out of that foundation myself) who don't agree with YEC.

 

And that's a problem. I had a man (YEC) tell me  (and a class of 4/5th graders...which isn't cool IMHO) that someone isn't a "true Christian" unless....then he went into the YEC viewpoint.

 

I have serious issues with someone who says that. It's divisive. And I don't think it's divisive within just a Christian/secular way. I just think other Christians who disagree may be a bit more silent in their disagreement.

 

 

[brookspr]

I got curious so I went to read the thread (now locked) on the Chat board.  It sure got ugly!  The one thing that always baffles me, and I know we are all human, but how can people that believe so strongly about their faith that they homeschool because of it can be so nasty to one another.  I know others may have been nasty first, but aren't we all supposed to be good humans and treat each other with respect no matter what religion we follow or don't follow?  Name calling is not very Christ-like in my opinion.  This thread has been very pleasant to read and informational as well.  Thank you to all for keeping it real :)

[Walking-Iris]

I got curious so I went to read the thread (now locked) on the Chat board.  It sure got ugly!  The one thing that always baffles me, and I know we are all human, but how can people that believe so strongly about their faith that they homeschool because of it can be so nasty to one another.  I know others may have been nasty first, but aren't we all supposed to be good humans and treat each other with respect no matter what religion we follow or don't follow?  Name calling is not very Christ-like in my opinion.  This thread has been very pleasant to read and informational as well.  Thank you to all for keeping it real :)

 

Now you have me curious. I really believe it's in the nature of the chat board to get like that.

 

The rare few times I've ventured over I remember why I usually act as though it doesn't even exist. :)

[teeniebeenie6]

 

Any way it's not like evolution is even really taught in schools to begin with.

 

 

Really? I attended a Canadian high school and we were definitely taught evolution.

ETA: It is so wonderful to see a thread with different points of view that stays nice. Thanks!

[redsquirrel]

 

Any way it's not like evolution is even really taught in schools to begin with.

 

I never got it in high school. My dh has subbed in the local high school. He doesn't see it.

 

Teachers never really do "find time" to get to that chapter.

 

College is where you learn this science.

 

Maybe where you live, but I don't think you can generalize your experience. I was absolutely taught about Darwin and evolution in both history and science classes in both middle and high school, and that was a long time ago, lol. My son will be attending public high school next year and I know that the state requires it be covered in depth. I live in a state that has administered statewide exams for over 100 years, so there is no 'not getting to it' if the state requires it. If it is a  state requirement  then it will be covered. The basics of evolution are tested on the 8th grade cumulative science exam, with more testing done on the high school life science exam.

[Wheres Toto]

I learned evolution in middle school and high school in the 1980's in NJ.  My oldest definitely had it in high school and possibly in junior high.

[Luanne]

I agree with this and wonder if YECers have done a disservice to religion by trying to meld the two.  They end up putting God under the microscope when it just doesn't work that way.  By demanding scientific evidence for a position held by faith, YECers are somehow bowing to the superiority of science, as if science has the final say, when as you point out, science is limited.

 

If you want the truth, the two have always been melded.  It is the anti-Creationist scientists who separated the two.

[a27mom]

I agree with this and wonder if YECers have done a disservice to religion by trying to meld the two. They end up putting God under the microscope when it just doesn't work that way. By demanding scientific evidence for a position held by faith, YECers are somehow bowing to the superiority of science, as if science has the final say, when as you point out, science is limited.

I always wonder if I shouldn't define myself as YEC when I read some responses on this board. I have never thought by believing that creation likely happened less than 10,000 earth years ago means that I am demanding scientific evidence for my faith. Or that I am somehow anti-science. So I do begin to wonder if there is some official YEC statement that I am unaware of. ( I am not being sarcastic or anything BTW, I really am interested in knowing if Young Earth is an official position, or just a generic description) I came to what I call a young earth view independently, so I may be using the term wrong.

 

My religious beliefs are melded with everything in my life. So it is rather impossible not to meld them with science, since science, especially biology, is a part of my life. My issue is not that science needs to prove my faith, rather if science contradicts my faith than one of them has to be wrong. In my case, commonly held "scientific" interpretations about human evolution contradict my beliefs about the relationship between God and man. So either those scientific interpretations are wrong or my understanding of the relationship between God and man is wrong. I have concluded that there are possible interpretations of the scientific evidence that don't contradict my understanding of God and man. After I realized this, I realized that I did not need to believe in an "old earth", even though that doesn't so directly contradict my beliefs. A more recent age of the earth makes more sense when I consider my understanding of theology/philosophy/faith/science as a whole. I can't compartmentalize any of those things, they must function in my intellect as a cohesive whole. So I must meld :)

[Forgiven]

I find this topic interesting. I watched a movie a few years ago called "The Genesis Code" on Netflix (it was on streaming, but I'm not sure if it still is). This movie was in the genre of "romance", which is why I watched it, but it really wasn't romantic. It was actually about reconciling old Earth versus young Earth viewpoints. It has me believing both. I don't want to spoil it, so I won't go into details here, but it gave me an entirely different way to look at the issue.

 

Something that Bill Nye said in his 30-minute portion of the debate actually reminded me of some of the stuff in this movie. I wanted to call him up and tell him to watch this movie. Same with Ken Ham. Maybe if the two of them sat down and watched this movie alone, they may both find themselves thinking differently...One could only hope. ;)

 

Point is: what if both sides have it wrong? What if the two can be reconciled into a third option?

 

Anyway, I don't need Science to prove that God exists. I know He does, and I know that we only know a fraction of how the Earth was made. Why do we keep trying to fit God into what our little minds can conjure up? He is more than anything we can even think or dream.

 

 

[Cricket]

I always wonder if I shouldn't define myself as YEC when I read some responses on this board. I have never thought by believing that creation likely happened less than 10,000 earth years ago means that I am demanding scientific evidence for my faith. Or that I am somehow anti-science. So I do begin to wonder if there is some official YEC statement that I am unaware of. ( I am not being sarcastic or anything BTW, I really am interested in knowing if Young Earth is an official position, or just a generic description) I came to what I call a young earth view independently, so I may be using the term wrong.

 

My religious beliefs are melded with everything in my life. So it is rather impossible not to meld them with science, since science, especially biology, is a part of my life. My issue is not that science needs to prove my faith, rather if science contradicts my faith than one of them has to be wrong. In my case, commonly held "scientific" interpretations about human evolution contradict my beliefs about the relationship between God and man. So either those scientific interpretations are wrong or my understanding of the relationship between God and man is wrong. I have concluded that there are possible interpretations of the scientific evidence that don't contradict my understanding of God and man. After I realized this, I realized that I did not need to believe in an "old earth", even though that doesn't so directly contradict my beliefs. A more recent age of the earth makes more sense when I consider my understanding of theology/philosophy/faith/science as a whole. I can't compartmentalize any of those things, they must function in my intellect as a cohesive whole. So I must meld :)

 

I didn't really word my first post as well as I could have.  I meld things the way you say too.   :001_smile:  My faith informs all other areas of my life.  I was thinking more of using the Bible as a scientific text and developing scientific hypotheses from it.  Then if the hypotheses are shown to be false, people assume the Bible is also false and full of error.  

 

I find this topic interesting. I watched a movie a few years ago called "The Genesis Code" on Netflix (it was on streaming, but I'm not sure if it still is). This movie was in the genre of "romance", which is why I watched it, but it really wasn't romantic. It was actually about reconciling old Earth versus young Earth viewpoints. It has me believing both. I don't want to spoil it, so I won't go into details here, but it gave me an entirely different way to look at the issue.

 

Something that Bill Nye said in his 30-minute portion of the debate actually reminded me of some of the stuff in this movie. I wanted to call him up and tell him to watch this movie. Same with Ken Ham. Maybe if the two of them sat down and watched this movie alone, they may both find themselves thinking differently...One could only hope. ;)

 

Point is: what if both sides have it wrong? What if the two can be reconciled into a third option?

 

Anyway, I don't need Science to prove that God exists. I know He does, and I know that we only know a fraction of how the Earth was made. Why do we keep trying to fit God into what our little minds can conjure up? He is more than anything we can even think or dream.

 

I'll have to check this out.  I definitely agree with the bolded.  My ds and I were discussing this the other day.  The more we advance in science, the more we realize we don't know.  We finally get a microscope powerful enough to observe cells and find even smaller components and still smaller.  We build a telescope to see to the edge of our solar system and find more and more beyond.  It's all fascinating.

[CaffeineDiary]

 

Point is: what if both sides have it wrong? What if the two can be reconciled into a third option?

 

 

What's irreconcilable are not the facts, but how each side reacts to facts.  When someone who is properly doing science is confronted with new facts, she adjusts her theory to conform to the facts.  Science welcomes being proven wrong.  Science is all about being proven wrong.  

 

But in that debate, Ken Ham actually said that there were no facts that could make him change his mind about what happened.  That's what is irreconcilable with scientific thought.  The details of what one believes about the age of the Earth or one's personal belief in God are, to be blunt, entirely beside the point.  The point is that if you demand that reality conform to your beliefs rather than allowing your beliefs to be modified by new information, you are not doing science.  You're doing ignorance.

 

 

My issue is not that science needs to prove my faith, rather if science contradicts my faith than one of them has to be wrong. In my case, commonly held "scientific" interpretations about human evolution contradict my beliefs about the relationship between God and man. So either those scientific interpretations are wrong or my understanding of the relationship between God and man is wrong.

 

 

Science is not a body of factual data; it's a method of building and organizing knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.  I think it's perfectly fine (if misguided) for you to decide that you want to choose another epistemological framework in which to live your life.  But I think you should be accurate and honest about what you're doing.

 

It's fine to reject common mathematics (many higher math discoveries have been made by doing exactly this!), but it's problematic to say "Well, I accept all the common rules of math, but my beliefs tell me that 2+2=5." 

 

 

[Walking-Iris]

I most definitely did not have this science in high school. It was very basic. I attended a public high school in Kentucky. And it was great in a lot of respects, but there definitely was a feeling of an overriding Christian belief system. 

 

My DH has subbed for middle schools here (rural IL) and I have seen textbooks. The word evolution is NOT in the index. They imply it throughout with words like ancestor of, developed from, or phrases with the age of things indicated in mya and so on. I've even seen the word "ancient" printed exactly like that, in quotes. Again I live in a community with a strong Christian influence.

 

They get just little bits scattered throughout. The textbook I was able to see had one paragraph about Charles Darwin and his experiments with plant tropisms.  Anyone would come away from that textbook thinking that was all Darwin was known for. There's no explicit instruction in evolution.

 

I don't know if it's because of a feeling of just accepting it as is and not going into too much detail. Just to keep from rocking the boat.

 

Anyway, one thing I am aware of is just how little people actually know and understand this particular topic in science. And how many false assumptions and misunderstandings there are. I think that's why certain fringe belief systems continue to gain followers....

 

 

 

 

[a27mom]

What's irreconcilable are not the facts, but how each side reacts to facts. When someone who is properly doing science is confronted with new facts, she adjusts her theory to conform to the facts. Science welcomes being proven wrong. Science is all about being proven wrong.

 

 

 

Science is not a body of factual data; it's a method of building and organizing knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. I think it's perfectly fine (if misguided) for you to decide that you want to choose another epistemological framework in which to live your life. But I think you should be accurate and honest about what you're doing.

 

It's fine to reject common mathematics (many higher math discoveries have been made by doing exactly this!), but it's problematic to say "Well, I accept all the common rules of math, but my beliefs tell me that 2+2=5."

 

While science may be all about "being proven wrong", I don't think that many "scientists" are all about being proven wrong. I know many scientists ( real PhD ones), and they are as human as the rest of us. But that is somewhat beside the point. :)

 

The 2+2=5 argument has a logical flaw, if it is in reference to my comments.

 

First of all 2+2=5 is a piece of mathematical data, not an explanation or prediction so it is analogous to "both primates and humans have opposable thumbs" not "humans and primates have evolved from the same ancestor".

 

Regardless I am not saying that my beliefs tell me that 2+2=5, I am saying that I believe that it is possible for a supernatural being outside of the rules of our universe to make 2+2=5. That doesn't mean I reject the rules of common mathematics. I am not going to walk around paying for 2, $2 items with a five dollar bill and refuse change. I simply believe that the rules of common mathematics are limited to time and space, and therefore it is possible that there have been instances when 2+2=5 with supernatural intervention.

 

I don't think most who believe in the supernatural are being dishonest. Most will freely tell you that they believe science is limited by the time/space continuum and therefore an incomplete explanation. (We'll they might not put it that way exactly ;) but even Ken Ham freely states he is biased) But being honest about the belief that there is something beyond the time/space continuum shouldn't bar one from participating in science. Just as the bias of not believing in existence beyond a time space continuum should not bar one from participating in science. (Which was a common problem in the past)

 

Interesting discussion. :)

[a27mom]

I most definitely did not have this science in high school. It was very basic. I attended a public high school in Kentucky. And it was great in a lot of respects, but there definitely was a feeling of an overriding Christian belief system.

 

My DH has subbed for middle schools here (rural IL) and I have seen textbooks. The word evolution is NOT in the index. They imply it throughout with words like ancestor of, developed from, or phrases with the age of things indicated in mya and so on. I've even seen the word "ancient" printed exactly like that, in quotes. Again I live in a community with a strong Christian influence.

 

They get just little bits scattered throughout. The textbook I was able to see had one paragraph about Charles Darwin and his experiments with plant tropisms. Anyone would come away from that textbook thinking that was all Darwin was known for. There's no explicit instruction in evolution.

 

I don't know if it's because of a feeling of just accepting it as is and not going into too much detail. Just to keep from rocking the boat.

 

Anyway, one thing I am aware of is just how little people actually know and understand this particular topic in science. And how many false assumptions and misunderstandings there are. I think that's why certain fringe belief systems continue to gain followers....

That is really interesting. Another demonstration of how regionally varied the US is. We studied evolution extensively (for high school) in public high school biology in NY state. We also had a moderate amount of evolutionary theory in 7th grade bio when I lived in California. Granted much of what they taught us I learned later in college was no longer the current thinking in the field. (I studied a lot of biology at a secular university)

[albeto.]

My religious beliefs are melded with everything in my life. So it is rather impossible not to meld them with science, since science, especially biology, is a part of my life. My issue is not that science needs to prove my faith, rather if science contradicts my faith than one of them has to be wrong. In my case, commonly held "scientific" interpretations about human evolution contradict my beliefs about the relationship between God and man. So either those scientific interpretations are wrong or my understanding of the relationship between God and man is wrong. I have concluded that there are possible interpretations of the scientific evidence that don't contradict my understanding of God and man. After I realized this, I realized that I did not need to believe in an "old earth", even though that doesn't so directly contradict my beliefs. A more recent age of the earth makes more sense when I consider my understanding of theology/philosophy/faith/science as a whole. I can't compartmentalize any of those things, they must function in my intellect as a cohesive whole. So I must meld :)

 

This is the crux of the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. It's the reason Bill Nye accepted Ken Ham's invitation: to raw attention to the importance of science education here in the United States. If one believes that faith is a better representative of reality, if a particular religious resource is more adept at explaining the natural world, this would be problematic to apply on the large scale. For example, if one believes sincerely than genetics can be effected by placement during copulation (Genesis 30:25-43), this would understandably negatively impact the way in which we as a society research and address such diseases and conditions as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Cerebral Palsy, autism, spinal cord injury, and all kinds of cancer. But we don't do that because we can see with our own eyes it doesn't work. This is what Bill Nye explained throughout the debate - we can see with our own eyes all kinds of facts that are either not presented in, or conflict with the bible. There is no matter of faith in science, it's a matter of knowledge, gained by observation, and education is how this knowledge is passed from generation to generation. 

 

The idea that a religious source is more adept at explaining the natural world than a methodology that relies on observation, data collection, critical analysis of the data, and peer review opens up all kinds of uncomfortable questions that ultimately are unanswerable. Rather than answers, the solution is to accept a claim based on faith. My first question would be, Whose faith is the most accurate in representing this hidden knowledge? The kind of faith Ken Ham has? John Piper? Pope Francis? Or John Calvin or Joseph Smith or Mohammed? If each person has a genuine faith, they sincerely believe is authorized by God Himself, then who is to say the others are wrong? By what objective standard could we determine whose faith is most accurate? Where would I, an atheist with no belief in any god, know which faith is the right one to adopt?

 

By the way, science doesn't address any supposed relationship between God and man simply because God cannot be incorporated into the scientific method. Science is silent on that front because science is admittedly ignorant on that front.

[a27mom]

This is the crux of the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. It's the reason Bill Nye accepted Ken Ham's invitation: to raw attention to the importance of science education here in the United States. If one believes that faith is a better representative of reality, if a particular religious resource is more adept at explaining the natural world, this would be problematic to apply on the large scale. For example, if one believes sincerely than genetics can be effected by placement during copulation (Genesis 30:25-43), this would understandably negatively impact the way in which we as a society research and address such diseases and conditions as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Cerebral Palsy, autism, spinal cord injury, and all kinds of cancer. But we don't do that because we can see with our own eyes it doesn't work. This is what Bill Nye explained throughout the debate - we can see with our own eyes all kinds of facts that are either not presented in, or conflict with the bible. There is no matter of faith in science, it's a matter of knowledge, gained by observation, and education is how this knowledge is passed from generation to generation.

 

.

Yes of course us Christians think we could solve world hunger if we could just get that recipe for those barley loaves that little boy had in John 6. :lol: I realize you don't believe in the supernatural, but the thoughtful and educated who do are usually able to understand the difference between supernatural intervention and scientific endeavor. Your random biblical reference was amusing ;)

 

But you actually hit the nail on the head as to why Christians will fight to keep God in the world of science.

 

"impact the way in which we as a society research and address such diseases and conditions as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Cerebral Palsy, autism, spinal cord injury, and all kinds of cancer. "

 

Yes the impact, if individuals are stripped of their intrinsic worth and value endowed on them by a creator, and subject to the whim of the "fittest", Science has the potential to become a horrifying spectacle indeed.

[IsabelC]

Yes the impact, if individuals are stripped of their intrinsic worth and value endowed on them by a creator, and subject to the whim of the "fittest", Science hashthe potential to become a horrifying spectacle indeed.

 

Funny how the introduction and enforcement of strict ethical principles in scientific endeavor happened to coincide with the biggest decline of religious belief in the history of the western world, hey?

 

 

Also,  I'm not sure that everybody understands the concept of "fittest". It doesn't mean the toughest, strongest or most ruthless, as some people seem to suppose (although it can so, in some circumstances). And it doesn't mean the topless kilt guy with the most ripped muscles ;) It just means those best adapted to the environmental conditions. The most up to date research suggests that traits such as compassion and cooperation evolved in humans precisely because compassionate and cooperative individuals were "fittest"; that is, groups who worked well together and took care of each other were, on the whole, more successful than more "dog-eat-dog" groups. 

[a27mom]

Funny how the introduction and enforcement of strict ethical principles in scientific endeavor happened to coincide with the biggest decline of religious belief in the history of the western world, hey?

 

 

Also, I'm not sure that everybody understands the concept of "fittest". It doesn't mean the toughest, strongest or most ruthless, as some people seem to suppose (although it can so, in some circumstances). And it doesn't mean the topless kilt guy with the most ripped muscles ;) It just means those best adapted to the environmental conditions. The most up to date research suggests that traits such as compassion and cooperation evolved in humans precisely because compassionate and cooperative individuals were "fittest"; that is, groups who worked well together and took care of each other were, on the whole, more successful than more "dog-eat-dog" groups.

I think I should clarify. I do not think that those who don't believe in God are automatically going to be horrific. Actually because I believe in God I don't think he can be removed from science because his very existence reveals himself and even most non believers will have some awareness of worth.

 

I do understand the definition of the "the fittest". The whims of the compassionate can be as scary as the whims of the tyrant.

 

I was not aware that science is considered more "ethical" now than in the past? I think that could be easily argued both ways. Though my instinct would be that on a whole it is relatively unchanged as far as level of ethics and corruption. But it isn't pertinent to the thread really.

 

I really just wanted to say that I was not saying that atheist scientist are just waiting to commit atrocities. But it is analogous to the fear that Christians who are scientists are just waiting to be able to replicate God's miraculous intervention as a scientific principle.