Does teaching evolution harm Christianity?

[Scott J]

JWI has provided the words of these people themselves. Why is that objectionable?

He acknowledges that in spite of honestly admitting problems, they still hold to evolution. They don't think that these problems are critical... that's their prerogative. However, the telling thing is that in doing so the expose their beliefs as philosophical/metaphysical.

They hang on to evolution not because of what the evidence "suggests" or because its explanations are the most "parsimonious". No, these rules can be discarded when they threaten the Theory.

They cling to it for the same reason the early evolutionists did- because they have ruled out the primary alternative.

 

[JWI]

The problem I have with evolution is that it is taught as scientific fact. Many times the very serious problems with the theory are not addressed. Also, opposing theories are not allowed to compete.

I think the theory of Intelligent Design is completely scientific. It is not necessary to point a student toward any particular intelligence, only to show that there is real evidence to support the theory.

And I think critics of ID should be able to voice their objections to this theory.

Then let the students make up their own mind.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by JWI:
The problem I have with evolution is that it is taught as scientific fact.

I have studied the topic twice in the educational system. It's never taught as fact.

I think the theory of Intelligent Design is completely scientific.

ID is not science, it's philosophy. As a philosophy, it's perfectly valid, and have no problem with it being taught as such. Personally, I don't want my kids to learn the ID philosophy. I want them to learn philosophy from scripture.

 

[Scott J]

I agree with you on that.

If we were talking about real science then responsible educators would be at least amenable to the honest presentation of the very real problems with ToE.

"Silence the dissidents!" isn't a very strong testimony in favor of any point of view... but in particular one that is supposedly objective science.

Will any of the supporters of evolution here simply tell us how it endangers the education of young people in critical thought to be honest about the problems with evolution? How will it damage a child by being honest about a theory's philosophical premise, its worthiness, and the potential problems of the theory... beginning with the premise? If evolution is "true" then why such resistance to open vigorous criticism of it?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JWI:
The problem I have with evolution is that it is taught as scientific fact.

I have studied the topic twice in the educational system. It's never taught as fact.</font>[/QUOTE] I have children with science books in the 10th, 7th, and 5th grades. They all reference evolutionary ideas and timeframes without qualification. They are presented as facts.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I think the theory of Intelligent Design is completely scientific.

ID is not science, it's philosophy.</font>[/QUOTE] Naturalism is not science, it's philosophy. Therefore, evolution is philosophical in nature and not scientific since the whole theory hinges on the presupposition of universal naturalism.

As a philosophy, it's perfectly valid, and have no problem with it being taught as such. Personally, I don't want my kids to learn the ID philosophy. I want them to learn philosophy from scripture.

Personally, I agree. Now if we can just get the naturalists who have co-opted science education on board then we can make some progress towards resolve this issue.

Either competing theories should be presented as "philosophies on science" without regard to their premises or else science should stick to... science.

 

[JWI]

Johnv

It depends on what you call science. I completely disagree. There is strong scientific evidence, especially in the field of mathematical probabilities that evolution cannot have taken place in even trillions of years.

And though probably in the minority, there are many biologists, paleontologists, and geneticists who say evolution is not taking place.

There is also much credible and scientific evidence for a young universe. At the same time, there are many ID'ers who believe in an old universe. So these opposing views within ID should both be presented.

Saying there is evidence for an intelligence that designed the universe without pointing to a particular intelligence is very open to interpretation. There are some who believe life was placed on earth by intelligences from other planets. This is a widespread belief today. So you can hardly argue that it gets religious in nature and points toward a deity. It can, but it can also point elsewhere.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
If we were talking about real science then responsible educators would be at least amenable to the honest presentation of the very real problems with ToE.

Again, having studied evolution in the classroom in the educational system, I can tell you that the down sides and problems in the theory were discussed. That is, likewise, part of the scientific method.

But those who are staunch ToE naysayers will say that such a discussion isn't good enough. To each his own. I say as you do. Let students of science study the topic thoroughly, and make up their own minds.

 

[Scott J]

There are three primary divisions of basic philosophical worldviews- naturalism, non-naturalism, and supernaturalism.

It is a violation of the establishment clause for one of these worldviews to be favored over the others in the public school science classroom.

 

[Johnv]

Philosophical views should remain ut of the science class in entirety. ToE critics, in an attempt to gird creationism, will claim the ToE to be a philosophy. That is where they err. The ToE is a valid and accepted scientific theory, and should be taught in the science class as such. But, as pointed out, it should be taught (and typically is taught) warts and all.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
If we were talking about real science then responsible educators would be at least amenable to the honest presentation of the very real problems with ToE.

Again, having studied evolution in the classroom in the educational system, I can tell you that the down sides and problems in the theory were discussed. That is, likewise, part of the scientific method.</font>[/QUOTE] As a parent of public school students that frequently has to deprogram my kids... I can tell you that their textbooks make definitive and unqualified statements that can only support the theory of evolution. They do not discuss problems with anything I have seen presented that is related to evolution.

But those who are staunch ToE naysayers will say that such a discussion isn't good enough.

It isn't when it doesn't occur. In fact, it especially doesn't when teachers who attempt to present the problems are removed from their teaching positions as happened to a guy in Minnesota or Wisconsin just last year.

Several teachers have told us that they can present an their alternative point of view but only to a limited extent and only if asked directly by a student.

To each his own. I say as you do. Let students of science study the topic thoroughly, and make up their own minds.

But that isn't occurring John. I am glad that you had a better experience. But the guy I mentioned is a real world case where a guy lost his job for being critical of the ToE in the classroom. He didn't suggest an alternative. He was just critical of evolution.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Philosophical views should remain ut of the science class in entirety. ToE critics, in an attempt to gird creationism, will claim the ToE to be a philosophy. That is where they err.

Does that include naturalism John and its ancillaries?

You have not shown me in error nor disproven my premise. Evolutionists assume naturalism. That is a metaphysical, philosophical assumption. It can never be proven nor disproven therefore it is not scientific.

The ToE is a valid and accepted scientific theory, and should be taught in the science class as such.

At one time it was a valid and accepted scientific theory to believe that trash created rats and that fruit flies came from the fruit itself.

It is accepted not because the things I have argued are false but because of the dominate philosophy of the day.

Evolution is not scientific by the very same reason that evolutionists say that creationism is not science. It is premised on an assumption that cannot be falsified. It makes other assumptions that cannot be falsifed as well but this one is absolutely critical.

But, as pointed out, it should be taught (and typically is taught) warts and all.

Point out all you want John. I have my kids textbooks. I have read several portions that state evolutionary ideas as cold hard facts without any sense of qualifying.

 

[Scott J]

Oh, and another obvious refutation of your idea that the theory is being presented honestly and critically...

Cobb County, GA last year attempted to insert a simple label that notified children that evolution was only a theory. Was even that statement of fact acceptable? No. The demagogues went nuts about how religious whackos were trying to destroy science education.... and for what? Simply pointing out that a controversial theory is just that- a theory.

 

[JWI]

ScottJ said,

"JWI has provided the words of these people themselves. Why is that objectionable?

He acknowledges that in spite of honestly admitting problems, they still hold to evolution. They don't think that these problems are critical... that's their prerogative. However, the telling thing is that in doing so the expose their beliefs as philosophical/metaphysical.

They hang on to evolution not because of what the evidence "suggests" or because its explanations are the most "parsimonious". No, these rules can be discarded when they threaten the Theory.

They cling to it for the same reason the early evolutionists did- because they have ruled out the primary alternative."

Thank you so much. That is exactly the point I am trying to make. You are much better at expressing yourself than me.

There are hundreds and hundreds of quotes from evolutionists presenting terrific problems for evolution.

If I was an evolutionist, these statements would be a big problem for me. I want to know the truth. Let the chips fall where they may.

Some evolutionists have openly admitted that evidence supports creation, but that this is "anathema" to them.

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138

This is a very startling admission.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
You have not shown me in error nor disproven my premise.

Certainly I have. Evolution is sceince. You can argue that it's bad science all you like. It's science.

Evolutionists assume naturalism. That is a metaphysical, philosophical assumption. It can never be proven nor disproven therefore it is not scientific.

All science seeks a natural explanation of the evidence. By your definition, any scientific topic that disagrees with your philosophical view would hence be considered to assume naturalism. That is a false premise.

At one time it was a valid and accepted scientific theory to believe that trash created rats and that fruit flies came from the fruit itself.

If the evidence supported it, then I would have supported it as being taught so.

Evolution is not scientific by the very same reason that evolutionists say that creationism is not science.

Creationism is not science because it starts with a premise and looks for evidence to support it. The ToE is science because it starts with the evidence, and develops a theory which fits the evidence.

I have my kids textbooks. I have read several portions that state evolutionary ideas as cold hard facts without any sense of qualifying.

You'll also note that the manner in which it is taught is in line with other theories of science. You don't seem to have a problem with which those other theories are taught. Only this one, because your philosophical opinion differs from it. I say that if the evidence supports it, and the scientific method upholds it, then it should be taught. Period.

 

[JWI]

Johnv

I disagree with this statement entirely,

"Creationism is not science because it starts with a premise and looks for evidence to support it. The ToE is science because it starts with the evidence, and develops a theory which fits the evidence."

The sudden appearence of fossils in the Cambrian period supports creation perfectly without need of additional theory.

The admitted lack of transitional fossils fits the creation account perfectly without need of additional theories.

To the contrary, the Cambrian Explosion and admitted fact of no truly known transitional fossils is a tremendous problem for evolution. This is what led many evolutionists such as Gould to come up with Puncuated Equilibrium and the Hopeful Monster theories to explain this lack of evidence.

So, your statement is utterly false. The true evidence supports creation naturally without need for further theory.

It is evolution that does not have true scientific evidence to support it.

This is why I have said all along that the very theories of Punk Eek and the Hopeful Monster PROVE there is no scientific proof for evolution. Otherwise these theories would not be needed.

As wild as Punk Eek is, the Hopeful Monster theory is even more ridiculous. To be honest, this has now been abandoned by most evolutionists.

Here is a brief article on the Hopeful Monster theory.

http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro12.html

 

[Helen]

John, if you don't think evolution starts with a premise and then tried to cram the data to fit, you ought to read December's Scientific American.

the article will only be available to the public for awhile, but it is here"
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000DC8B8-EA15-137C-AA1583414B7F0000

It is "Getting a Leg Up on Land" by Jennifer A. Clack

Go ahead. Read it. Take a look at the squishing and squeezing that is being done to try to support evolution.

No matter what, evolution happened. That is the foundation of it all. It does not matter if EVERY theory and idea about it has to be rearranged -- IT HAPPENED.

bull

If you actually follow the data and the evidence, there is no chance of it happening. Ever. The most anyone can show or get is variation, which may or may not result in speciation depending on the mating cues of the type of animal. That's it. No more. No giant changes. Just variation, which, by the way, was in the gene pool to begin with anyway.

 

[JWI]

Helen

Thanks for the article.

You've got to love statements like this:

"We knew that tetrapods had evolved from fish with fleshy fins akin to today's lungfish and coelacanth, a relation first proposed by American paleontologist Edward D. Cope in the late 19th century. But the details of this seminal shift remained hidden from view. Furthermore, estimates of when this event transpired varied wildly, ranging from 400 million to 350 million years ago, during the Devonian period. The problem was that the pertinent fossil record was sparse, consisting of essentially a single fish of this type, Eusthenopteron, and a single Devonian tetrapod, Ichthyostega, which was too advanced to elucidate tetrapod roots."

We knew??? How did they know that? Their ONLY evidence was a single fish and a single Devonian tetrapod (which was too advanced to "elucidate" or make clear the transistion). I would call that POOR evidence. In fact, I would call that NO evidence at all.

But they knew. See, they state everything as FACT. This is completely dishonest. This is the biggest problem I have with evolution, that they teach theory as fact.

And without evidence. Wow.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Helen:
John, if you don't think evolution starts with a premise and then tried to cram the data to fit, you ought to read December's Scientific American.

Let's assume you're correct. You should also agree, then, that creationism does not belong in the science classroom.

 

[JWI]

Johnv

I know your question was for Helen, but I would like to give my answer as well.

I have no problems with theories. I think you have to have theory. And I even believe it is ok to look for evidence to support a theory.

But, when you ignore evidence that contradicts a theory, then I have a problem. This is outright dishonesty.

I have no problems with evolutionists and creationists presenting REAL evidence to students. But I also believe contrary evidence should be presented. Speculations should be clearly identified as such.

I have also seen many elementary and high school textbooks. Evolution is presented as scientific fact. Problems with evolution are not mentioned. Other theories are not presented and allowed to compete.

This is wrong. Tell people the real facts and let them decide for themselves.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Helen:
John, if you don't think evolution starts with a premise and then tried to cram the data to fit, you ought to read December's Scientific American.

Let's assume you're correct. You should also agree, then, that creationism does not belong in the science classroom. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree. But intelligent design does. It is the alternate to evolution without religion attached and looks at evidence via estabished scientific methods.

Actually, I would be happy if ALL of evolution were taught -- warts and all. That would be enough to convince anyone it's impossible!