*OFFICIAL Bamabake - blackumbrella SMACKDOWN THREAD*

[blackumbrella]

But you're missing MY point. This thread IS a debate between evolutionary theory and intelligent design. Intelligent design is an argument well-suited for metaphysics and philosophy, and I'd have no problem with someone teaching it in that realm. It's just not science, and has no place in science classrooms.

this is THE point. the flaccid counter argument is that science excludes no possible explanation, so to exclude the supernatural is nonscientific. maybe it's true that the failure to address ideas/entities for which there is absolutely no shred of proof is a drawback of the scientific enterprise, but it's a drawback that's yielded some impressive results. are we really suggesting our science teachers make time for baseless speculations like gods and aliens and alternate realities just bc they're 'possible'? if so, we might want to start putting chinese into the curriculum too--we'll be needing it.

 

[bamabake]

this is THE point. the flaccid counter argument is that science excludes no possible explanation, so to exclude the supernatural is nonscientific. maybe it's true that the failure to address ideas/entities for which there is absolutely no shred of proof is a drawback of the scientific enterprise, but it's a drawback that's yielded some impressive results. are we really suggesting our science teachers make time for baseless speculations like gods and aliens and alternate realities just bc they're 'possible'? if so, we might want to start putting chinese into the curriculum too--we'll be needing it.

Evolution is speculation. This is the oldest ground that has been covered. Evolution takes as much faith as creation science. If anyone that views this thread needs evidence, do a search and find the old threads, here, on the subject and see.
There are one or two distint differences. While creation science can make as good a case for every issue from the fossil record to evolution, the athiests cant tell all of us in a scientific way, how something ( that that was here after nothing) came into being, in other words how can something come from nothing. If there was a big bang, where did the material for it come from? The athiest cant answer that one question.

 

[blackumbrella]

Evolution is speculation. This is the oldest ground that has been covered. Evolution takes as much faith as creation science. If anyone that views this thread needs evidence, do a search and find the old threads, here, on the subject and see.
There are one or two distint differences. While creation science can make as good a case for every issue from the fossil record to evolution, the athiests cant tell all of us in a scientific way, how something ( that that was here after nothing) came into being, in other words how can something come from nothing. If there was a big bang, where did the material for it come from? The athiest cant answer that one question.

put down the glue. the above post, if you honestly believe it, which you do, perfectly exemplifies the travesty that is scientific education in this country. for the benefit of all those who haven't witnessed the thrashing your ridiculous ideas have taken in past threads, i'll boil it down again: just 0.15% of 480,000 earth and life scientists polled by newsweek identified themselves as creationists. by contrast, a whole 1% of the same scientists were named 'steve.' project steve your first response when confronted with these numbers has been silence. your second response has been to claim that this vast vast majority of scientists is blinded by indoctrination, while your precious 0.15% see things clearly. i wonder if you'd accept such logic if 0.15% of pathologists said you have widespread cancer in your brain and need to have most of your brain removed, while the other 99.85% say you're perfectly healthy. maybe you already have.

 

[lazarus]

lazarus, here is thy caricature

Interesting, and even amusing. However, I do not archive threads, and do not "resurrect them" for my amusement. Thus topic is near and dear to me, because I believe that allowing the metaphysical intelligent design argument into the science classroom will tend to dilute real science.

 

[bamabake]

put down the glue. the above post, if you honestly believe it, which you do, perfectly exemplifies the travesty that is scientific education in this country. for the benefit of all those who haven't witnessed the thrashing your ridiculous ideas have taken in past threads, i'll boil it down again: just 0.15% of 480,000 earth and life scientists polled by newsweek identified themselves as creationists. by contrast, a whole 1% of the same scientists were named 'steve.' project steve your first response when confronted with these numbers has been silence. your second response has been to claim that this vast vast majority of scientists is blinded by indoctrination, while your precious 0.15% see things clearly. i wonder if you'd accept such logic if 0.15% of pathologists said you have widespread cancer in your brain and need to have most of your brain removed, while the other 99.85% say you're perfectly healthy. maybe you already have.

Pft. You lost the debate before. It is too tiresome to rehash it much less tring to deal with your goofy anaolgies. The silence you percieve is just exaustion at the idea of redebating an issue you lost already. I only commented the above for others. Not do disuade you of your religion.

 

[jthomas666]

There are one or two distint differences. While creation science can make as good a case for every issue from the fossil record to evolution, the athiests cant tell all of us in a scientific way, how something ( that that was here after nothing) came into being, in other words how can something come from nothing. If there was a big bang, where did the material for it come from? The athiest cant answer that one question.

You inherent bias is on display for all to see. You equate people who believe in evolution with atheists, as though evolution and faith are somehow antithetical. But even John Paul II stated that evolutionary science and the story of Genesis are not mutually exclusive--surely you wouldn't consider him an atheist?

Your big bang example illustrates your refusal to understand that there is a difference between faith and science. You seem to think that the fact that science cannot explain something completely invalidates the science--specious logic at best. All it does is frame the current limits of our knowledge.

 

[lazarus]

Evolution is speculation. This is the oldest ground that has been covered. Evolution takes as much faith as creation science. If anyone that views this thread needs evidence, do a search and find the old threads, here, on the subject and see.
There are one or two distint differences. While creation science can make as good a case for every issue from the fossil record to evolution, the athiests cant tell all of us in a scientific way, how something ( that that was here after nothing) came into being, in other words how can something come from nothing. If there was a big bang, where did the material for it come from? The athiest cant answer that one question.

You, sir, show an incredible lack of understanding when it comes to science.

Science is, if you will, a process by which humanity builds logical models of the working processes and mechanics of reality and nature. We deal with what is provable, within the realm of what we know, and what is demonstratable, within the limits of our knowledge at this time. At no time do scientists pretend these models are the 'end all' and 'be all' of knowledge, which is what separates us, in part, from uber-religious sorts, who claim to HAVE the 'final knowledge'. I might add, however, that the historical arbitors of 'final knowledge' led us to such things as justification for the tyranny of kings instead of self-rule, justifications for the harrassment and murder of Jews, justifications for the continuation of slavery, justification for the brutalization of entire peoples, because they are 'infidels', justification for the refusal to share political power with women for centuries, and the continuing (and equally illogical) justification for denial of certain rights to gays and lesbians, now. But that is beside the point. That's an issue for philosophy, human rights and the rule of law.

Creation 'science' is not science, because it is based upon a model that cannot be demonstrated and which has zero physical evidence to support it (and remember here... the idea of science IS to support a theory. Trying to 'prove' parts of evolution are wrong... which creation science does not do, BTW... and claiming the vacuum of an answer means the alternative HAS to be true is not science. You prove nothing, scientifically, by 'vacuum'). Furthermore, all natural scientists will tell you that it may not be possible, from science, to answer the types of questions you ask. But science doesn't pretend to answer all questions, just those that can be modeled and demonstrated. And if we come up with working models that fit reality, as best we understand it and supported by facts, that do not require supernatural 'control' or 'design', we do not assume it. If a model works without external control, then external control isn't necessary for our understanding of the phenomenon. We're not saying it isn't there, just that it isn't needed for our understanding of the mechanics of the event or process. That's why we don't even discuss such control or design.

That's why we have philosophy and religion, to 'answer' those types of questions, from a metaphysical sense.

The bottom line is, evolution is suported by rigorous and well-grounded theory. And I do means RIGOROUS and WELL-GROUNDED; 100+ years worth. Creationism and intelligent design are interesting philosophical and metaphysical constructs, and have merit within their respective metaphysical niche, but have no place in science.

 

[IH8Orange]

Interesting, and even amusing. However, I do not archive threads, and do not "resurrect them" for my amusement. Thus topic is near and dear to me, because I believe that allowing the metaphysical intelligent design argument into the science classroom will tend to dilute real science.

Quite austere, are we not? I was merely being jovial, not flippant.

I also believe that educators should teach evolution. However, I believe that they should make it clear that science isn't omniscient and that belief in other theories is allowable. Science isn't meant to be intransigent or unalterable. If it becomes that, then it is no longer science. Discovery and research REQUIRES the ability to accept new ideas and new methods.

When a history teacher teaches American History, you wouldn't dare hear one of them state that the student should accept ONLY this particular textbook's version. Surely, other viewpoints and versions should be consulted in order to form a more complete understanding. A history teacher today might even ask students to consult other cultures' interpretations of American events to see an issue from another viewpoint... in the name of tolerance and understanding. Explicitly invalidating alternative theories would be termed "intolerance" in most other areas of study. Why should science be any different?

The main issue with the "Evolution only with no alternatives" dogma is that it foments insubordination against either parents, who should be allowed to give moral and religious instruction to their children, or teachers, who also require the trust of children to do their job properly. If a teacher makes the statement that "evolution only is correct" and a parent makes the statement "creation only is correct", then a child is left to make a decision of who is the liar: the parent or the teacher. Thus, the obstinence of both sides causes a rift that forces a child to distrust one of the people upon which he/she depends for instruction. When a child doesn't trust someone, then he/she is not likely to take their instruction seriously. The truth is that a child is probably going to trust their parents over any teacher, so forcing the issue is going to hurt the schools and the study of science more than it is going to help.

Teach evolution in school. Just remove the inflexibility and bigotry against other theories of "creation".

 

[lazarus]

Quite austere, are we not? I was merely being jovial, not flippant.

Oh, I know. I was just explaining why I even entered this debate.

I also believe that educators should teach evolution. However, I believe that they should make it clear that science isn't omniscient and that belief in other theories is allowable. Science isn't meant to be intransigent or unalterable. If it becomes that, then it is no longer science. Discovery and research REQUIRES the ability to accept new ideas and new methods.

Of course. I've been in agreement with that the whole time.

Explicitly invalidating alternative theories would be termed "intolerance" in most other areas of study. Why should science be any different?

Invalidation is properly seen in its context. I can't invalidate creationism or intelligent design as general theory, because, clearly, the two are metaphysical theories. We can't and shouldn't eliminate metaphysical ideas, because a great deal of art, poetry, philosophy and law fall in that realm. Invalidation of creationism and intelligent design as a scientific theory is a different issue, because neither of the two fulfill even the basic requirements to be considered a 'science' (their theories do not lend themselves to simulations or physical models that can or do produce the model of the earth or universe, as it is now... science requires theory to be 'reproducible'... that is, if I take your theory and model it, I should come to the same conclusion you do) nor are creationism and intelligent design supported by any physical evidence, to date. Furthermore, to replace evolution and cosmology, creationism would have to encompass the two to large degree, instead of trying to debunk them, because to replace a scientific theory, one has to provide another that fills in the gaps of what we know now. You must remember that evolution (the study of the development of life and living structure) and cosmology (the study of the formation of the universe) are well-grounded and supported by factual evidence. Their models work. There ARE gaps. But creationism does not fill them, and certainly does not encompass the other two.

The main issue with the "Evolution only with no alternatives" dogma is that it foments insubordination against either parents, who should be allowed to give moral and religious instruction to their children...

No. It does no such thing. We teach 'evolution with no alternatives' because there is no scientifically supported alternative, at this time. People are perfectly welcome to provide relgious education at home, at church, and in faith-based classes, if their school system provides for such electives. Just don't confuse philosophy and metaphysics for science, and we'll be OK.

...or teachers, who also require the trust of children to do their job properly. If a teacher makes the statement that "evolution only is correct" and a parent makes the statement "creation only is correct", then a child is left to make a decision of who is the liar: the parent or the teacher.

I think we're missing the boat here, and are swiftly losing the dock, as well. The issue is science rather than metaphysics. Evolution is a well-grounded, well-established scientific theory. At this time, there are no viable scientific alternatives. Note: I said scientific alternatives. That's why biological sciences teach evolution... because it is a well-grounded scientific theory, and biology is a science. Science is about providing the best explanations, within the limits of current knowledge, for the mechanics of life and the universe. We can demonstrate physical models of life and the universe, and we do so backed with physical evidence. The models we have work without external control or design, so we don't assume them, and do not add them to the models. We don't say that such do not exist (that would not be good science, after all), simply that such is not expressed in evidence nor needed for the understanding of the phenomenon.

Thus, the obstinence of both sides causes a rift that forces a child to distrust one of the people upon which he/she depends for instruction. When a child doesn't trust someone, then he/she is not likely to take their instruction seriously. The truth is that a child is probably going to trust their parents over any teacher, so forcing the issue is going to hurt the schools and the study of science more than it is going to help.

No, the rift is caused by a misunderstanding of science. Granted, scientists have not done a good job in explaining the difference between metaphysics and science, but that is partially because the religious community comes the table ready to fight, not to listen, and partially because scientists tire of trying to overcome this defensiveness, and become defensive themselves, as a result.

Children SHOULD trust their parents, but I also think the parents have an obligation for understanding all the issues before they join the fight. The issue is "what is good science?" Scientists have no argument that religion fills an important place in many people's lives, but that niche is very different from the role that science fills. Science is about fact, not faith; data, not dogma; evidence, not ecumenism. We don't pretend to know everything nor to answer every question. We submit that it is entirely possible that there is 'intelligent design' and 'intelligent control'. Nobody can prove it, so it isn't 'science'.

Teach evolution in school. Just remove the inflexibility and bigotry against other theories of "creation".

As soon as someone demonstrates a working theory of creation that meets genuine scientific rigor, as evolution does, I would be happy to do so. But you must understand... the 'bigotry' is one of rigor, not philosophy. It is the scientist's only reasonable response to pseudoscience.

As I've stated before, I have no problem with metaphysics. Just don't bring it into the science classroom and call it science. It is not.

 

[IH8Orange]

No, the rift is caused by a misunderstanding of science. Granted, scientists have not done a good job in explaining the difference between metaphysics and science, but that is partially because the religious community comes the table ready to fight, not to listen, and partially because scientists tire of trying to overcome this defensiveness, and become defensive themselves, as a result.

The rift will always be there as long as some people have faith in objects and events that can't be supported by science. The processes of thought exist in parallel universes. Scientists will always assume that faith-based thought processes are inherently wrong, because their thought process requires observation and validation, which aren't necessary to the concept of faith. Humans need faith as much as they need science to co-exist.

For example, if I am engaged to a woman and I decide to break it off because the divorce rate per-capita for my particular demographic group exceeds 50%, my decision is scientifically sound. I am supported statistically, which is an objective justification for ending the engagement. However, I can't assume that marriage to that woman would have resulted in the same outcome as that suggested by statistics. If I love the woman and believe that I could be happy with her for the rest of my life, then I should disregard the facts and go with my faith that our marriage would be successful.

I hope to start my own business in the near future. If I look at the success rate of business startups, however, the outlook isn't rosy. That's plenty of justification to just give up my dream. However, I have faith that I'll be successful, although the statistics might suggest otherwise. I have to keep that faith... a belief in something not substantially supported by facts... or I'll just give up.

Children SHOULD trust their parents, but I also think the parents have an obligation for understanding all the issues before they join the fight. The issue is "what is good science?" Scientists have no argument that religion fills an important place in many people's lives, but that niche is very different from the role that science fills. Science is about fact, not faith; data, not dogma; evidence, not ecumenism. We don't pretend to know everything nor to answer every question. We submit that it is entirely possible that there is 'intelligent design' and 'intelligent control'. Nobody can prove it, so it isn't 'science'.

I submit that science isn't exclusively fact. Faith is also required in science. If I am recording data from an electronic instrument that I calibrated ten minutes ago, I must have faith that a software glitch didn't just skew all my numbers. If I have a colleague validate my observations on a different instrument, I must have faith that the same software glitch doesn't occur on his instrument and skew his numbers in exactly the same manner. One might state that the probabilities are infinitesimally small for that occurrence, but faith affects that .0000001% the same that it does the other 99.9999999%. You can quantify the amount of faith required to accept a given outcome, but the "fact" is that even the tiniest amount of faith is still faith. There is really nothing that anyone can state unequivocally is 100% fact.

I'm an Electrical Engineer so I'm very well educated in many different areas of science. Science is much of my life and I believe that much of it is fact, at least to the extent of our knowledge. I don't, however, assume that today's "fact" won't become tomorrow's "fiction". What I consider fact at this moment in time is constrained and defined by the scope of observation. If I observe a room into which no light enters, I observe nothing and all other observers will observe nothing. There is nothing being returned that can be sensed, so the scientific record will state that the room is empty. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't an object in the room. Science will say that nothing is detected in the room and they will be correct, to the extent that they can conclude. However, metaphysics will state that the shortcomings of science cannot determine if that room is truly empty, and that is correct also.
Omission of the metaphysical theory implies that the scientific theory is the only correct one. The metaphysical theory might not adhere to scientific "rigor", but it is just as valid and actually, in the case presented here, would be less misleading than the scientific theory.

Newtonian physics were considered "fact" until Relativistic physics came along, which showed the shortcomings of them at high velocities. Most scientists consider it "fact" that the speed of light in a vacuum is a physical constant for all time. However, there are theories that propose that "c" hasn't always been constant.

As soon as someone demonstrates a working theory of creation that meets genuine scientific rigor, as evolution does, I would be happy to do so. But you must understand... the 'bigotry' is one of rigor, not philosophy. It is the scientist's only reasonable response to pseudoscience.

As I've stated before, I have no problem with metaphysics. Just don't bring it into the science classroom and call it science. It is not.

I agree with you about the labeling of creation as science. However, also don't errantly make the claim that science is exclusively fact. It isn't. Faith is a component of all education.

 

[lazarus]

The rift will always be there as long as some people have faith in objects and events that can't be supported by science. The processes of thought exist in parallel universes. Scientists will always assume that faith-based thought processes are inherently wrong, because their thought process requires observation and validation, which aren't necessary to the concept of faith. Humans need faith as much as they need science to co-exist.

I couldn't disagree more, if I tried. They are not parallel thought processes, because they require different standards of proof. They fall under different categories of rigor, altogether. It is simply that science fills one niche in human endeavor, where a very rigorous test and proof standard exists, and religion fills another. I have already stated that faith is important. But science isn't ABOUT faith, but about facts. Faith doesn't require exacting rigor. Science does. Science requires 'duplicability'... the ability for me to take your theory, develop the model, and come to the same conclusion that you do. Since intelligent design and creationism only require the belief in something that CAN'T be proven, which is anathema to science, they are not science, and should not be taught in the science classroom. I can't make it clearer than that.

For example, if I am engaged to a woman and I decide to break it off because the divorce rate per-capita for my particular demographic group exceeds 50%, my decision is scientifically sound. I am supported statistically, which is an objective justification for ending the engagement. However, I can't assume that marriage to that woman would have resulted in the same outcome as that suggested by statistics. If I love the woman and believe that I could be happy with her for the rest of my life, then I should disregard the facts and go with my faith that our marriage would be successful.

When you need to fasten two objects together with a screw, do you then use a jack hammer to do it? We are talking here about the proper application of tools. The separation in this case is not scientifically sound at all, because you are misapplying a tool. The tool is used to determine trends among the population by studying a sample, in order to make general predictions about the population as a whole, to determine where problem areas exist. If you made a personal decision based on the misapplication of this tool, I'd say your negative results are at least what you deserved.

I hope to start my own business in the near future. If I look at the success rate of business startups, however, the outlook isn't rosy. That's plenty of justification to just give up my dream. However, I have faith that I'll be successful, although the statistics might suggest otherwise. I have to keep that faith... a belief in something not substantially supported by facts... or I'll just give up.

True, but the determination of your financing may well be determined by factual information about the type of business you wish to build. If you have the money, or the means to get the money, more power to you. It's a free country. However, if business intelligence says the field is saturated, or there is little demand for the product, or you have a poorly defined business model, chances are extremely strong you will not get financing.

The point here being that the tools for making this kind of decision are there, if you need them. If you decide to forego using them, or decide to ignore them, that's your privilege. But as Damon Runyon once sagely suggested, "the race does not always go the fastest, nor the fight to the strongest, but that is the way to bet".

I submit that science isn't exclusively fact. Faith is also required in science.
If I am recording data from an electronic instrument that I calibrated ten minutes ago, I must have faith that a software glitch didn't just skew all my numbers. If I have a colleague validate my observations on a different instrument, I must have faith that the same software glitch doesn't occur on his instrument and skew his numbers in exactly the same manner. One might state that the probabilities are infinitesimally small for that occurrence, but faith affects that .0000001% the same that it does the other 99.9999999%. You can quantify the amount of faith required to accept a given outcome, but the "fact" is that even the tiniest amount of faith is still faith. There is really nothing that anyone can state unequivocally is 100% fact.

I hope you are aware that this is another metaphysical argument. I hope, as well, that the irony of that is not lost on you.

I'm an Electrical Engineer so I'm very well educated in many different areas of science. Science is much of my life and I believe that much of it is fact, at least to the extent of our knowledge. I don't, however, assume that today's "fact" won't become tomorrow's "fiction".

Neither do I. But you design systems based on the best available information at your disposal, today, not on the basis of supposition nor things you cannot prove.

What I consider fact at this moment in time is constrained and defined by the scope of observation. If I observe a room into which no light enters, I observe nothing and all other observers will observe nothing. There is nothing being returned that can be sensed, so the scientific record will state that the room is empty.

*Sigh*. Metaphysics, and not true. The scientific record would state that nothing was observed, not that the room was empty. Of course, if scientific honesty prevailed, it would also state that the proper tools for measure were not used, either, and hence the observation conducted improperly.

Science will say that nothing is detected in the room and they will be correct to the extent that they can conclude.

False. The report may read that nothing was detected, but the report would also reveal that the observation was conducted poorly.

However, metaphysics will state that the shortcomings of science cannot determine if that room is truly empty, and that is correct also.

This is a poor analogy, for reasons I have already stated.

Omission of the metaphysical theory implies that the scientific theory is the only correct one.

No, omission of the metaphysical theory implies it does not meet scientific rigor, and that it does not meet the necessary standard to become an alternative scientific theory. You'll still missing the point... we cannot use non-demonstratable and non-duplicable models to describe physical mechanics. Any model built from theory has got to accurately depict those mechanics, or it fails to meet scientific rigor. You would no more build a system on faith than I would write a program on faith. We both have rigorously tested and proven models to work from.

See, you're still arguing from a misconceived position. God may well have spoken the Universe into being, but once He did it, it contained properties, from that point, that can be measured, processes that can be recorded, and from that, a model of the working structures and their interactions built up. I may not can tell you who the architech is, or even if there were an architech, but I CAN tell you how the system is structured and how it functions. I can make predictions, to within acceptable tolerances, about that system. THAT is science. We don't discuss the 'designer' of natural systems, because the designer is not an issue in the form and operation of the system.

The metaphysical theory might not adhere to scientific "rigor", but it is just as valid and actually, in the case presented here, would be less misleading than the scientific theory.

Outside your poor example, I would agree to this point: that metaphysical theories are valid in the appropriate settings. As I said before, there is a great need in human endeavor for metaphysics and philosophy. There are realms outside of science where questions are asked. As with the tools analogy, you shouldn't try to apply science to those places metaphysics is better suited (science is not the realm of the supernatural). But at the same token, because of the lack of acceptable vigor, one should not apply metaphysics where it doesn't belong.

Newtonian physics were considered "fact" until Relativistic physics came along, which showed the shortcomings of them at high velocities.

More accurately, Newtonian physics is a subset of Relativity within a local neighborhood of the manifold (at less than relativistic velocity, local spacetime is Euclidean, and Newtonian physics don't break down). As I said before, Newton wasn't replaced, because his theory was good up to relativistic speeds. Einstein didn't destroy Newton. His theory encorporates Newton as a subset, because both have to agree in local spacetime, with non-relativistic velocity.

Most scientists consider it "fact" that the speed of light in a vacuum is a physical constant for all time. However, there are theories that propose that "c" hasn't always been constant.

To be more precise, c is a universal constant in all frames of reference, in a vacuum, at this time. The nature of spacetime in the early formation of the universe had an affect on 'c' relative to now.

I agree with you about the labeling of creation as science. However, also don't errantly make the claim that science is exclusively fact. It isn't. Faith is a component of all education.

*Sigh* The difference is, where 'faith' applies in science, it is supported by something that is still measurable and provable: past experience. Faith, within science, still falls in the category of things and events that are natural (part of the realm of nature). Again, science cannot say that the supernatural has no bearing on reality. All science can say is that the current models we develop from our rigorously tested theories do not require the discussion of the supernatural in order to understand the basic principles and structures of nature and the universe. Science is about explaining how things work, about describing the mechanics and structure of things. Science is not interested in the 'designer' it can't see, but the 'design' that it can.

 

[bamabake]

You inherent bias is on display for all to see. You equate people who believe in evolution with atheists, as though evolution and faith are somehow antithetical. But even John Paul II stated that evolutionary science and the story of Genesis are not mutually exclusive--surely you wouldn't consider him an atheist?

Your big bang example illustrates your refusal to understand that there is a difference between faith and science. You seem to think that the fact that science cannot explain something completely invalidates the science--specious logic at best. All it does is frame the current limits of our knowledge.

I think from all the research and years of study that it boils down to one thing. Evolution is essentially the atheistic explanation for origins, doing away with the need for God. From Darwin to present day, evolutionist use it to explain how we got here without a Creator, and therefore, to justify a lifestyle without accountability to God.

“A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.”
(The autobio of Charles Darwin 1887)

So there are christians that believe that evolution and the bible can be in agreement. That first off doesnt change the premise above or the fact that these people are wrong. If the bible say " All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in rightousness" ( 2Timothy 3:16) why would God say that if he lied in Genesis. In the bible Jesus is refered too as " the second Adam". Why would He do that if Adam wasnt a real person? In the debate before we got down to the actual text in the question about "a day" ( and this was brought up by two people I know are christians). We pointed out that the word yom refers to a 24 hour period or one day.... God said He created man in His own image. Was God a monkey? A one celled creature? As a christian we believe that Jesus died and took on the sins of mankind, the bible says man is spirit and flesh. Did Jesus die for evolved monkeys or man created from the ground and life ( spirit ) breathed into him by God?
I am simply pointing out that evolution is the religion of the godless.
Yes, some christians believe in parts of evolution. I am also pointing out that that is spiritual error. It isnt the first time or the only issue where christians can be wrong about spiritual issues.

 

[lazarus]

I think from all the research and years of study that it boils down to one thing. Evolution is essentially the atheistic explanation for origins, doing away with the need for God. From Darwin to present day, evolutionist use it to explain how we got here without a Creator, and therefore, to justify a lifestyle without accountability to God.

Your position is quite clear, but it's an uncompelling argument, because you have to understand science before we can properly have this discussion.

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Like all science, it attempts, to the best of the factually-supported evidence and rigorously tested hypotheses to build a working model of the processes and structures of the subject of interest. It doesn't explain "how we got here without a Creator", but what the likeliest process of our "arrival" looked like, based on the rigorously tested evidence to date. We don't discuss any external 'architech' of the processes, because there is no way to verify the existance of an architech, let alone the identity of such an 'architech', within the tools and methods that can be currently employed. At no time does any modern evolutionist say "there is no God". But you must understand that science is interested in the mechanics of reality, not the 'Mechanic'. Science can't tell you ANYTHING about any Mechanic, and hence doesn't assume one in its working models.

But the best answer I can give you is not to confuse metaphysical concerns with scientific ones. Forcing intelligent design or creationism into science makes as much sense as forcing a study of extraterrestrials into science, because we have as much scientific evidence suggesting we came from aliens as we do from God. That is to say, none. Doesn't mean I'm saying God didn't create us, but that it can't be demonstrated, by any scientific method.

The existance of God, and His creation, is beyond the scope of science. Science is about the design of reality, not the Designer. The Designer is properly discussed in metaphysical terms, not physical ones.

 

[jthomas666]

I think from all the research and years of study that it boils down to one thing. Evolution is essentially the atheistic explanation for origins, doing away with the need for God. From Darwin to present day, evolutionist use it to explain how we got here without a Creator, and therefore, to justify a lifestyle without accountability to God.

I wonder, do you believe in medical treatment? Do you think that you will live or die according to God's will, so why bother with that HMO? Do you consider research into new treatments a blasphemous attempt to circumvent the will of God? Do you believe the saying "If God had meant for us to fly, He would have given us wings?"

You insist on an atheistic motivation for evolution when it simply is not required. God gave us an intellect. That intellect drove us to understand how the body works, resulting in biology and medicine. It drove us to understand how the world works, resulting in physics and chemistry. It drove us to understand how societies work, resulting in ethics. Does the theory of gravity require that we renounce God? Does the realization that the earth rotates around the sun require that we renounce God (that was the thinking during Galileo's day)? Similarly, an attempt to understand how we came to be in no way renounces God.

“A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.”
(The autobio of Charles Darwin 1887)

Interesting. Off point, but interesting. While Darwin did, in fact, become agnostic/athiest at the end of his life, that change was not a result of his studies in evolution, but rather due to the death of his daughter.

So there are christians that believe that evolution and the bible can be in agreement. That first off doesnt change the premise above or the fact that these people are wrong.

Would that be your incorrect premise that belief in evolution MUST be equated with atheism?

If the bible say " All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in rightousness" ( 2Timothy 3:16) why would God say that if he lied in Genesis. In the bible Jesus is refered too as " the second Adam". Why would He do that if Adam wasnt a real person?

Who says that God lied? The Genesis story, literally, is paradoxical, as we have days described before the world was created. So it is not much of a leap to say that God didn't lie, but presented the story in a way that our feeble understanding could comprehend.

Saavik: You lied.
Spock: I exaggerated.

In the debate before we got down to the actual text in the question about "a day" ( and this was brought up by two people I know are christians). We pointed out that the word yom refers to a 24 hour period or one day

Which proves what? How can you describe a unit of time before time even came into being? When you are trying to describe the indescribable, you have no choice to describe the unknown in terms of the known.

You should also know that "40 days and nights" a phrase that crops up quite a bit in the Bible, has generally been interpreted as meaning "a long time". In other words, it is not always used as a literal definition of a period of time.

.... God said He created man in His own image. Was God a monkey? A one celled creature? As a christian we believe that Jesus died and took on the sins of mankind, the bible says man is spirit and flesh. Did Jesus die for evolved monkeys or man created from the ground and life ( spirit ) breathed into him by God?

I am simply pointing out that evolution is the religion of the godless.

Evolution is not a religion. It is a science. You refuse to grasp that basic definition.

Yes, some christians believe in parts of evolution. I am also pointing out that that is spiritual error. It isnt the first time or the only issue where christians can be wrong about spiritual issues.

That statement cuts both ways, you know.

 

[IH8Orange]

I couldn't disagree more, if I tried. They are not parallel thought processes, because they require different standards of proof. They fall under different categories of rigor, altogether. It is simply that science fills one niche in human endeavor, where a very rigorous test and proof standard exists, and religion fills another. I have already stated that faith is important. But science isn't ABOUT faith, but about facts. Faith doesn't require exacting rigor. Science does. Science requires 'duplicability'... the ability for me to take your theory, develop the model, and come to the same conclusion that you do. Since intelligent design and creationism only require the belief in something that CAN'T be proven, which is anathema to science, they are not science, and should not be taught in the science classroom. I can't make it clearer than that.

Parallel - having no points of intersection. Fact-based and Faith-based have no points in common, yet they guide people along their separate paths. Thus they are parallel. They do not intersect. That is why those following one path can't understand those following the other.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you over what are probably extraneous or insignificant differences in our beliefs. I don't believe that creation should be taught as science. You don't believe that creation should be taught as science. That was the primary point of contention amongst the participants of this thread, was it not? We are apparently in agreement on that point.

I believe that children should be presented the caveat that evolution is our best guess based on what we know, but that there is NO GUARANTEE that it is the only valid explanation and that other explanations, while not based on scientific findings, are out there for their examination. That should be the choice of the individual and if their moral guide points them at the religious theory of creation, then so be it.

Now, if you disagree with that second part, then that's fine. I'm not going to make another post on this issue. I've got a hurricane to model and monitor.

Caio

 

[lazarus]

I believe that children should be presented the caveat that evolution is our best guess based on what we know, but that there is NO GUARANTEE that it is the only valid explanation and that other explanations, while not based on scientific findings, are out there for their examination. That should be the choice of the individual and if their moral guide points them at the religious theory of creation, then so be it.

Now, if you disagree with that second part, then that's fine. I'm not going to make another post on this issue. I've got a hurricane to model and monitor.

Caio

No, actually, we're getting closer to complete agreement. I have no problem with your suggestion, with one small detail... the students must be told (in a science classroom) that evolution is the only time-tested, rigorously challenged and accepted theory in the scientific community for the origins of life, because, to this point, it represents the only theory that is based on the available physical evidence and that meets the modeling criteria for objective science. However, they should be informed (for the sake of honesty) that there are philosophical and religious alternatives, falling outside the realm of science, that the student may address on their own time, outside of class. There would be no discussion of those alternatives in the science classrooom, but the students have a Constitutionally protected right to discuss them OUTSIDE of class.

That way, the student may form their own opinions and beliefs, without having their teachers being academically dishonest nor imparting creation beliefs as science.

Now, I hope that if you read this afterward, that you and your family are safe. I will keep those in the path of harm in my thoughts... and yes, prayers.

 

[bamabake]

I wonder, do you believe in medical treatment? Do you think that you will live or die according to God's will, so why bother with that HMO? Do you consider research into new treatments a blasphemous attempt to circumvent the will of God? Do you believe the saying "If God had meant for us to fly, He would have given us wings?"

You insist on an atheistic motivation for evolution when it simply is not required. God gave us an intellect. That intellect drove us to understand how the body works, resulting in biology and medicine. It drove us to understand how the world works, resulting in physics and chemistry. It drove us to understand how societies work, resulting in ethics. Does the theory of gravity require that we renounce God? Does the realization that the earth rotates around the sun require that we renounce God (that was the thinking during Galileo's day)? Similarly, an attempt to understand how we came to be in no way renounces God.

Interesting. Off point, but interesting. While Darwin did, in fact, become agnostic/athiest at the end of his life, that change was not a result of his studies in evolution, but rather due to the death of his daughter.

Would that be your incorrect premise that belief in evolution MUST be equated with atheism?

Who says that God lied? The Genesis story, literally, is paradoxical, as we have days described before the world was created. So it is not much of a leap to say that God didn't lie, but presented the story in a way that our feeble understanding could comprehend.

Saavik: You lied.
Spock: I exaggerated.

Which proves what? How can you describe a unit of time before time even came into being? When you are trying to describe the indescribable, you have no choice to describe the unknown in terms of the known.

You should also know that "40 days and nights" a phrase that crops up quite a bit in the Bible, has generally been interpreted as meaning "a long time". In other words, it is not always used as a literal definition of a period of time.

.... God said He created man in His own image. Was God a monkey? A one celled creature? As a christian we believe that Jesus died and took on the sins of mankind, the bible says man is spirit and flesh. Did Jesus die for evolved monkeys or man created from the ground and life ( spirit ) breathed into him by God?
Evolution is not a religion. It is a science. You refuse to grasp that basic definition.

That statement cuts both ways, you know.

I am not going to parse your post. I made my point in my response to you. Go read it again, without passion. Either Gods word is accurate or it isnt. You, my friend, are the one that didnt respond to my points.
For example:


If the bible say " All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in rightousness" ( 2Timothy 3:16) why would God say that if he lied in Genesis. In the bible Jesus is refered too as " the second Adam". Why would He do that if Adam wasnt a real person?


JT is " all scripture God breathed? Is it useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in rightousness? If it is....again why would God need to use a metaphor to explain the creation of the world and man?
Why would Paul refered to Jesus as the second Adam if Adam want a real person?

Also:


God said He created man in His own image. Was God a monkey? A one celled creature? As a christian we believe that Jesus died and took on the sins of mankind, the bible says man is spirit and flesh. Did Jesus die for evolved monkeys or man created from the ground and life ( spirit ) breathed into him by God?


Answer the questions. I happen to know that you do go to a church... Do you believe these things? Lastly, why is it such a problem for you to believe that God created the world and man the way HE described it. It isnt in conflict with science at all.
If you had paid any attention to the last debate on this topic you would know that many many many issues were dealt with regarding science. Everything from evolution, to the fossil record to biblical accuaracy. Tell me JT. What about the bibles accurate word do you disagree with? Is God just a story teller? If so why would he need to be anything but literal? He is God. Why why why would He leave it a mystery. The simple answer is He didnt.


Cheers

 

[blackumbrella]

bake, your forced marriage of evolution and atheism reveals your major malfunction as a 'thinker,' viz you're not much of one. evolution contradicts literal interpretations of the bible and likely other mythopoetic 'sacred' texts; any theist who does not endorse a literal reading or has no sacred text can believe in evolution, and in fact, i'd wager the vast vast majority of those who disbelieve evolution probably do so because, blind like you, they can't see past their own mythological indoctrinations. also, please explain why you continue to call science a religion, a habit curious to several of us i'm sure. most people would say religion has to do with supernatural beliefs; science, of course, doesn't. as best i can tell, your defintion would call alabama football fans and mcdonald's lovers and those addicted to drugs or pornography all members of their own religions. as for your literal reading of god creating man in his image--are you honestly suggesting that god has the body of a man? wang, marbles, mouth, dooky shoot and everything? what does god use the wang for, bake? the lady gods down at houndstooth? what's the mouth and dooky shoot for? does god really need to eat?

 

[jthomas666]

I am not going to parse your post. I made my point in my response to you. Go read it again, without passion. Either Gods word is accurate or it isnt. You, my friend, are the one that didnt respond to my points.

1. There's no point in doing anything if you aren't going to do it passionaltely. 2. What does "accurate" have to do with "true" or "literal"?

If the bible say " All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in rightousness" ( 2Timothy 3:16) why would God say that if he lied in Genesis. In the bible Jesus is refered too as " the second Adam". Why would He do that if Adam wasnt a real person?

1. When did I ever say that that Adam wasn't a real person? 2. If the scripture is God-breathed, and useful for teaching, and non-literal then Adam would be considered an allegorical figure, but an allegorical figure created and implanted in the hearts of the prophets by God. In that case, God might certainly refer to Jesus as the "Second Adam" because the allegorical Adam was the archetype that God set into the religion. That would hardly constitute lying.

Again, you are forcing an interpretation that isn't there. Scripture can indeed be God-breathed, useful for teaching, and non-literal. There is even Scriptural evidence that God is non-literal--Jesus taught using parables.

JT is "all scripture God breathed? Is it useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in rightousness? If it is....again why would God need to use a metaphor to explain the creation of the world and man?

You clearly did not read my post. Why would God need to use a metaphor? To explain something that we would otherwise be unable to grasp.

God said He created man in His own image. Was God a monkey? A one celled creature? As a christian we believe that Jesus died and took on the sins of mankind, the bible says man is spirit and flesh. Did Jesus die for evolved monkeys or man created from the ground and life ( spirit ) breathed into him by God?

Again, you raise questions that only have merit if the Bible must be taken literally.

If you had paid any attention to the last debate on this topic you would know that many many many issues were dealt with regarding science.

If by "dealt with", you mean "ignored and/or obfuscated with circular logic."

Tell me JT. What about the bibles accurate word do you disagree with?

Again, you are equating "accurate" and "literal".

Is God just a story teller? If so why would he need to be anything but literal?

OK, now, you're just losing it. Do you even understand the definition of "storyteller?"

He is God. Why why why would He leave it a mystery.

Why why why would he place a restriction on a single tree? Why would he send bears to kill chilldren who laughed at Elishah because he was bald? Surely you will agree that we cannot presume to understand the mind of God, nor his will. If that is the case, then God would have to present things to us in a manner in which we can understand.

 

[bamabake]

1. There's no point in doing anything if you aren't going to do it passionaltely. 2. What does "accurate" have to do with "true" or "literal"?


1. When did I ever say that that Adam wasn't a real person? 2. If the scripture is God-breathed, and useful for teaching, and non-literal then Adam would be considered an allegorical figure, but an allegorical figure created and implanted in the hearts of the prophets by God. In that case, God might certainly refer to Jesus as the "Second Adam" because the allegorical Adam was the archetype that God set into the religion. That would hardly constitute lying.

Again, you are forcing an interpretation that isn't there. Scripture can indeed be God-breathed, useful for teaching, and non-literal. There is even Scriptural evidence that God is non-literal--Jesus taught using parables.

You clearly did not read my post. Why would God need to use a metaphor? To explain something that we would otherwise be unable to grasp.

Again, you raise questions that only have merit if the Bible must be taken literally.

If by "dealt with", you mean "ignored and/or obfuscated with circular logic."

Again, you are equating "accurate" and "literal".

OK, now, you're just losing it. Do you even understand the definition of "storyteller?"

Why why why would he place a restriction on a single tree? Why would he send bears to kill chilldren who laughed at Elishah because he was bald? Surely you will agree that we cannot presume to understand the mind of God, nor his will. If that is the case, then God would have to present things to us in a manner in which we can understand.

This is rediculous. I am not making the claim that metaphors and so forth are not used in the bible. I am simply pointing out that evolution cannot be reconciled via the bible. It is conflict with it. The burden of proof lies with the evolution believers not with the bible anyway.
Now this is where we return to the last thread and I am dont have the energy to respond to stupid pointless pictures of monkeys and other inane attempts to give a bad theory legs.

Have a nice Sun. cheers