Do you believe..?

[Daryl Fletcher]

[Joe Baker]

Warning: written after 1:00 AM -- expect some rambling prose, incomplete sentences, and just downright unintelligible stuff here. If it's bad enough, I'll fix it in the morning -- er -- make that LATER in the morning.

It really is about sneaking religious indoctrination into public schools.

I can't say what that particular group's motives are. As a Christian, evangelism is necessarily a goal; but not by using a position of power, such as is held by a school teacher, to accomplish it. So I would be very much opposed to sneaking any religious indoctrination in. I think there's a way to do the whole thing right, however. Acknowledge that many religions teach that all that is was created by a divine creator; point out that science has no way to prove or disprove such a notion; acknowledge that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; then explain that, in this class, we're going to talk only about science. What do most scientists think? Why do they think it? What are the shortcomings and unanswered questions of the widely accepted theories? I think evolution should be taught in a science class; but it should NOT be dressed up as proven fact. For crying out loud, there are still biology textbooks with the discredited "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" argument. As you say,

Inconsistencies, gaps, unexplained issues should certainly be explored in any theory... Science requires that a theory be refutable for it to be scientific. If there is no way to evaluate the veracity of a theory, it shouldn't be taught as science.

There's no way to evaluate the veracity of evolution (not for a few thousand years, anyway . And there are some serious gaps in the theory -- cambrian explosion, as one of numerous examples. And despite the flawed science practiced by most of the ID crowd, there is some real logic to the notion of Intelligent Design. I have a good friend -- a hardcore atheist -- who invokes Occam's Razor to support evolution, in that belief in intelligent design assumes a designer, which makes things more complicated. I would respond by saying (the old "watch in the woods" analogy) that if you find a complex system in place, it's more likely to have been put there than to have just happened. BUT that's not proof, either -- just one question that evolution does not, in my opinion, sufficiently answer.

Like my stance on extraterrestrial life, my understanding of and faith in God does not rise and fall on the question of evolution. I think it's clear that life appeared in a certain order -- on this much science and the Bible are pretty much in agreement. But by what mechanism? Convince me that evolution is correct and I'll believe it. Convince me that it's anti-Biblical, and I'll reject it. Right now you have scientists pushing bad science (by teaching evolution as fact rather than theory) and theologians pushing bad theology (the notion that evolution cannot, under any legitimate interpretation of scripture, be possible). I reject both.

BTW, I apologize for misinterpreting your comments earlier. You seemed to ridicule the notion of a Creator. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
_____________________________
Joe Baker, who longs for a school system that pursues facts without prejudice, in ANY direction.

[funkcicle]

Who says science and religion can't agree? Perhaps there are too many people on each side scoffing at the other for us to realise that they do(seems common sense to me that they would HAVE to..right? Of course, that presupposes that they are both legitimate). The Bible doesn't specifically say that Adam and Eve were 6 foot tall blonde haired blue eyed aryans, nor does the theory of evolution teach that humans evolved from any specific species of lower life forms.

I certainly don't lose any sleep over the notion that my gr-grandparents 600 generations back might have had hairy knuckles and swung from trees.. no matter what we might have been shaped like, we were still human. This can be stated as fact as no syllogism can be written to illustrate otherwise(I hope). To me that opens a window for both schools of thought to find common ground..or maybe I'm just an optimist.

As for teaching in schools... education starts and ends at home. Whatever the government gives you is a TOOL for you to use in whatever matter you see fit, or not at all. Whining about what is taught in public schools(evolution, afaik, is taught as a THEORY anyways) on either side is acknowleging that either A)you don't trust your childrens' abilities to objectively collect data, or B)you're not willing to do your part in educating your child. My only demand of public education is that whatever is offered is offered consistently and equally to everyone. Anything beyond that is plain selfishness.

Perhaps if we worried less about "public education" and more about teaching "self education" we'd ALL have a much easier time getting along.

f.w.i.w.

[Jonathan Fowler]

This should resolve the question...

I took a class at University of Cincinnati when I was an undergrad which was conspicuously hidden in the special topics in geology dept.

What it really was was a class about ancient aliens. Here's the theory from that-We, the humans, were put here (earth) 10,000 years ago by the Annunaki, an alien race from planet Nibiru-planet X as you may, or may not know it. We were put here for the purpose of mining gold in Africa to turn to gold dust, then placed in the atmosphere of Nibiru to protect them from unhealthly UV rays.
Sound wacky enough? This was much easier to digest becauase the crazy (although tenured) professor brought a case of wine and tons of great food for the class of 15 every time..

What I never understood was this:How is it that an alien race capable of intergalactic travel coldn't figure out that it was their evil Alien SUV's and overuse of Hairspray propellant that caused their problem in the first place.

[Joe Baker]

Who says science and religion can't agree? Perhaps there are too many people on each side scoffing at the other ....

Funkcicle, for maybe the first time, I agree with you 100%. If a religious teaching is correct, it should acurately describe nature, insofar as it attempts to describe nature.

I mostly agree with this...

As for teaching in schools... education starts and ends at home. Whatever the government gives you is a TOOL for you to use in whatever matter you see fit, or not at all. Whining about what is taught in public schools(evolution, afaik, is taught as a THEORY anyways) on either side is acknowleging that either A)you don't trust your childrens' abilities to objectively collect data, or B)you're not willing to do your part in educating your child.

... but I think you're wrong about the nature of the teaching of evolution in public schools. I remain very involved in my children's education, and as each has taken biology I've read their textbooks. Evolution is absolutely NOT being taught as a theory in their classes (one HS in Texas, about 5 years ago, one in Tennessee last year, another in TN this semester). What's more, the 'ontology recapitulates phylogeny' series of pictures continues to show up in new biology textbooks. The writers of the textbooks and creators of curricula have, IMHO, conspired to quell any dissent or discussion of the issues that evolutionary theory leaves open. Is this anti-Christian bigotry? I'd neither assume that it is, or that it isn't, any too quickly (I say 'anti-Christian' rather than 'anti-religious' because the schools in general have embraced all other religions as 'diversity', while supressing any Christian expression -- and that's here in the Bible belt!)

I think you didn't REALLY mean this, so I'd like you to give you an opportunity to clarify:

My only demand of public education is that whatever is offered is offered consistently and equally to everyone. Anything beyond that is plain selfishness.

Yes, the opportunity should be the same for everyone, but it must also be of high quality, with respect for individual beliefs so long as they don't deny anyone else their rights. Note that the OPPORTUNITY must be the same for everyone; the results will, unavoidable, be different because different students will put out different levels of effort, will have different levels of support at home, and frankly will just have different natural ability.
__________________________
Joe Baker, who thinks he agrees with Funkcicle (and with Lew) far more than they think.

[MaryAnn]

Hmmm. Two things: one, I am a Taoist, more or less. My view of "reality" is based entirely on personal mystical experience.

Second, I think the word "theory" is being misunderstood or mis-used. A math theorem has a proof.

MA

[Joe Baker]

Second, I think the word "theory" is being misunderstood or mis-used. A math theorem has a proof.

MA, you make a good point.

... 2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena <a theory of organic evolution>

This is the definition that I apply to evolution. As far as I can tell, much of the theory may well be true -- certainly many of the facts used to support the theory of evolution are verifiable -- but the unexplained "miracles" it requires leaves me less than fully convinced.
____________________________
Joe Baker, who agrees that everyone has a right to be convinced or not convinced, whether about evolution, God, or the Easter Bunny -- but should do the best they can to weigh the evidence before attempting to sway others.

[TexTuba]

[MaryAnn]

the unexplained "miracles" it requires leaves me less than fully convinced.

Where I get confused about people in general is when they get into this "my belief is better than your belief" kind of game. It seems emotionally immature to me, but people of all ages engage in it. What is, is, and what you believe has no effect on it. Period. What you believe can, however, effect (I do mean that spelling, BTW) what aspects of reality that you are able to perceive.

So arguing, fighting, proselytizing, about beliefs, is of no use from my point of view. It just creates havoc, discontent, and ends up getting a lot of people bullied, threatened, filled with fear, or killed, instead of applying the lessons of love that most religions exist to teach.

MA, who would wish a few mystical experiences on just about everyone

[Rick Denney]

A math theorem has a proof.

Not all of them do.

But consider the use of language here. It is a "theorem" that is subsequently "proved". The proof of it becomes famous. But the description of the theorem is to describe the question, not the answer. We always describe it as a theorem so that we can see the proof demonstrated. Consequently, any text should described mathematical theorems as proven or unproven, with the former being put to use somehow.

There is a lot of evidence, but there is no demonstration of the mechanism of evolution, and thus it is still an unproven theory.

True scientists are far less sure about anything than those who quote them. Poor scientists speak with authority and assurance about things they cannot demonstrate. I find plenty of examples of both on all sides of the evolution discussion (and it is a red herring to present that discussion as having only two sides, of course).

The existence of God is a matter of faith, though for those with such faith the evidence is incontrovertable. Those who have faith in the random processes of chance find all the evidence pointing to their belief, too. Most true scientists do not try to answer such questions--they are concerned with much smaller effects.

Believing the truth of an unproven theory demands faith.

The big problem that evangelical Christians have with evolution is the way it is presented, not with the idea itself. It is presented as an alternative to a God-centered process. The popularity of the theory with anti-Christians (i.e., those who are specifically interested in discrediting Christianity) is that it provides an explanation for complexity that works without a God. In this way, they are coopting a scientific theory to support their metaphysical belief (i.e., faith), and they are doing so just as unscientifically as the evangelical Christians they deride. That's the point of presenting it as science without its connection to its underlying faith system. The problem is, of course, that human beings are compelled to have faith in something, and therefore true science is mostly an unrealized ideal. So, the battle rages between those of different faith illegitimately on the science front, and most who are motivated to debate the topic are guilty.

If I had children and trusted them to the public schools, I would be compelled to supplement what they learn with considerable education of my own. Considering some schools, it might be easier just to do it all myself. But I alone would feel responsible for what they learn. Yes, that would make me an activist in opposing materials and curriculum that presents science with the obvious motivation of support a particular belief. I agree with Joe that most of what I see supports the belief that there is no God.

It's ironic that those who support the current situation argue in favor of science, when their position is almost entirely motivated by faith. And when textbook writers and those who support them start from that perspective, instead of professional science we are getting amateur metaphysics. The result is back-door atheism. At least the faith of those who oppose them is disclosed.

Rick "who thinks schools should stick to the facts, ma'am" Denney

[MaryAnn]

All is choice. Choice of what to believe and choice of what evidence to consider. Even mystical experience depends on choice....I choose to seek that in the first place, and then I choose a particular interpretation that feels right to me. Others with similar experiences choose to believe they are "interesting chemical reactions in the brain."

Anyone heard the tale of the native americans not "seeing" the ships of columbus because they were too far away from their concept of what was possible? I wonder what else is out there, that we don't perceive because it is too far from what we think is possible.

MA, who has not been exposed to the science curriculum in the schools for some decades now

[Joe Baker]

Great post, Sousyhawk! Indeed, evolution as a theory fits very neatly with a lot of what we observe in the fossil record, in genetic research, and in our own contemporary experience with 'micro-evolution'. These are the precise reasons that science, which must deal ONLY with the observable (neither my scripture nor MAs mystical experiences), accepts evolution as 'the' mechanism by which life appeared and diversified. That's also why students should be TAUGHT that this is the prevailing scientific theory. Then they should also be taught that there are still some gaping holes that evolutionary theory, in its current state anyway, has been unable to fill. They should be taught to think -- to question whether there are things science can't measure, and what those things might be. They should be trained to think beyond what is known -- to question both 'what if' the experts are right, and 'what if' the experts are wrong. The key is teaching them to think critically.

Sadly, thinking critically is NOT taught to our kids. You are correct about the quality of most science instruction. One of my daughters was in an AP Biology class, and got what I'd consider a worthy high school science education. My other daughter was in a 'normal' class, but with a really good teacher -- a good friend of mine who I KNOW has some real doubts about evolution -- and who came away with a passable knowledge of science in general, but more superficial than I'd like. My son, who is in a (statistically) very good school, is in 'normal' Biology, and I don't think he's learned much of anything. Fortunately, his mother is in Anatomy & Physiology II right now, with BioChem next up. He reads her reading assignments and class notes, and knows how to critically evaluate what he's reading, so he'll probably come out okay, but still with some substantial gaps in his science knowledge.

Only one of my kids particularly believes in ET life, BTW -- the older daughter, who was in 'normal' science, and who became convinced by the 'Alien Autopsy' film a few years ago. I still love her though. What else are you gonna do?
_____________________________
Joe Baker, who is glad to take an excursion into UFOs, religion, public schools, libertarianism, and mystical experiences for a change!

[Daryl Fletcher]

[Joe Baker]

That's not the meaning I intended. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify that!

One of the real deficiencies in the theory of unguided evolution is the presumption that it would appear spontaneously -- indeed, the presumption that on virtually any planet that had water life WOULD spontaneously erupt. Yet in many, many attempts to create a primordeal soup and 'create' life, that life has never appeared -- let alone thrived and reproduced. Short of evidence that this is possible, one of evolution's key assumptions is unsupported.
_________________________
Joe Baker, who is sometimes less than precise.

[Joe Baker]

They should be taught to think -- to question whether there are things science can't measure, and what those things might be.

I disagree a bit here - I think in this case, the "things that science can't measure" is something best left to pastors(/rabbbis, etc.) and parents.

On this one seeming point of disagreement, I still am not so sure that we disagree (though it's okay with me if we do). Let me elaborate a bit. I tend to think of education in a more holistic sense. I'm not suggesting that the science teacher should engage the students in lecture or discussion about WHAT those things are that science can't measure -- only that it is worthwhile to remind students that THEY should consider science in the light of a more complete understanding of the world. Philosophy, religion, tradition, art, science -- these all play a role in a holistic understanding of our world. But then, once briefly acknowledged, the science teacher should spend his time teaching science, spending little or no time discussing the intangible.

This is where the student must learn to think critically, to evaluate and reconcile what is learned from all of those various disciplines. If what we've been taught about philosophy differs from what we've been taught about theology, we should evaluate which teaching is more credible. If what we learn from science is incompatible with what we believe from philosophy, then one of the two must be corrected. Science must win that contest, if it is complete and has been performed with discipline. But we must crically question whether the science IS complete. Are we making assumptions based on faith (as I would claim spontaneous generation of life does)? That doesn't mean those assumptions, or the conclusions drawn from them, are wrong; but it does mean that we can't give them the same credibility that we give to observable, replicatable facts.

My buddy the staunch atheist would reject this argument (he is opposed to the teaching of philosophy or theology, period, and considers tradition almost by definition to be wrong) You may think the same way, and that's certainly okay, but I wanted to be sure I had at least adequately explained what I meant.
____________________________
Joe Baker, whose fingers are getting tired, and who is loving every minute of it!

[Dylan King]

So arguing, fighting, proselytizing, about beliefs, is of no use from my point of view. It just creates havoc, discontent, and ends up getting a lot of people bullied, threatened, filled with fear, or killed, instead of applying the lessons of love that most religions exist to teach.

It is the suppression of speech that causes these horrible things you have described. Not "arguing, fighting, proselytizing, about beliefs" as you have described.

[Leland]

/me join thread

I disagree a bit here - I think in this case, the "things that science can't measure" is something best left to pastors(/rabbbis, etc.) and parents.

If there is something science can't measure - it can't measure it. Like the old question "Well - what happened before the Big Bang?" The answer here is "According to everything we know, the question doesn't make sense - time began at the Big Bang, so there was no 'before'." Science as 'science' has to remain quiet.

Well, of course, the ability of science to measure has changed over the years. They had to learn how to measure the interaction between the Earth and the Sun to realize that, no, the Earth is not the center of the Universe after all. They also had to learn how to measure stuff like speeds faster than a cheetah, radio frequencies, and temperatures above boiling water.

Like in the movie Men In Black, when K (Tommy Lee Jones) says to Will Smith's character, "1500 years ago people knew that the Earth was the centre of the universe. 500 years ago people knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago you knew that humankind was alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

Perception keeps changing.

The battle over evolution has distracted us from the real debate - how are we to read scripture?

Word-for-Word, of course. It's supposed to be the Truth, and shouldn't be interpreted as anything different. People can't have different versions of the same Truth. It's really just that simple.

Not that it's always correct, though.

/me exit thread

[Daryl Fletcher]

[windshieldbug]

evolution isn't without flaws either

wait, I know!!!...

The aliens have #3!...

[Mark]

Sure! I'd love to be in a vehicle traveling at four times the speed of light when I run smack into an asteroid.

It's been a while since I took physics; but I believe if you are travelling at the speed of light you are light.