Does teaching evolution harm Christianity?

[Johnv]

JWI,

The discussions over scientific theories tend to get pliarized over the ToE issue. For the sake of this argument, I'm going to address the discussion of theories in the scientific method.

In science, a theory is a a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, etc. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories in science. This is true whether you or I like it or not.

In science, a "fact" is an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true."

In accordace with the scientific process and method, evolution is properly and adequately taught. While, as a layman, I agree with you that presenting contradictory evidence is not a bad idea, the proper presentation of that is within the scientific method itself. I don't think it need be an absolute necessessity to present contradictory evidence of theories into the classroom in all or most cases (excpet where those points of evidence likewise pass the scientific method). If this were a requirment, then we'd be required to present contradictory evidence of the general relativity theory, quantum field theory, dynamic theory of gravity, plate techtonic theory, atomic theory, etc.

Now, if you think that arguments against these theories should always be presented, then you are in the very least being consistent, and I cannot argue with you. But most anti-ToE people would gladly accept these other theories as reasonable, due primarily to the fact that they do not collide with their personal religious views. If this is not your view, then I apologize in advance of any implication that might thereby lump you in.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Helen:
I agree. But intelligent design does. It is the alternate to evolution without religion attached and looks at evidence via estabished scientific methods.

I disagree. ID is not science, it's a philosophy. It's the "watchmaker" analogy. (the universe is so complex and perfect that it must have been created by an intelligent designer). It's great from a philosophical pov, but it's not science.

And as far as philosphy, I'll stick with biblical philosophy as found in scripture. I'm sure you'd agree with that.

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

And what if people do so, and become convinced that the ToE adequately explains the evidence, would you then be against teaching of it, warts and all?

 

[JWI]

Johnv

I am with Helen, I want warts and all. I would not mind evolution being taught, as long as opposing evidence is also taught.

And the same for ID. Many in ID believe the universe is old, many young. So there is not complete agreement even in ID. Show both sides.

But this is not what evolutionists are about. Here is a very recent article from CBS News. First, 8 families backed by the ACLU (hard to believe) sued the local school board for allowing a single STATEMENT to be read to students before studying evolution in the 9th grade. I have read several accounts about this statement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/09/tech/main1027395.shtml

It said,

1) Evolution is not a scientific fact.

What's wrong with that? That is absolutely true.

2) Evolution contains inexplicable "gaps"

What's wrong with that? That is absolutely true as well. I have posted dozens of statements by evolutionists admitting this fact.

3) It references another book.

I have no idea of which book this is. I read several articles about this, none mentioned the name of this book.

Perhaps they are afraid to identify this book in fear that people will read it????

But suing wasn't enough. According to this article, Democratic groups opposing these school board members successfully had 8 of the 9 school board members voted off the board.

The article says Democrats, so I did not say that for political purposes of my own. Here is the statement from the article.

"Eight of the nine school board members were up for election Tuesday. They were challenged by a slate of Democrats who argued that science class was not the appropriate forum for teaching intelligent design."

This is how evolutionists play. They will not allow a SINGLE STATEMENT opposing evolution to be read to students before the students are exposed to evolutionary teaching.

Does that sound fair to you? Does that sound like equal time??

And here is a recent article from USA Today. It is about the ID debate in Kansas.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-11-08-kansas-science-standards_x.htm

Note this statement in the article:

"Scientists have long considered the theory — which explains how species evolve through survival of the fittest, passing new and better traits to their offspring — as proven reality."

Proven reality????

This is outright falsehood.

Evolutionists are afraid of knowledge. They are afraid of opposing viewpoints. It is clear.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.</font>[/QUOTE] Not by the arguments of evolutionists themselves of why creationism and ID cannot be considered science. You yourself made that argument.

The philosophy of naturalism does not legitimately limit nor define what is science. That is an artificial limitation accomplished primarily by propaganda and politics- not reason.

sci·ence (sns)
n.

1-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2-Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.
3-Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
4-Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.


Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

There is nothing in these definitions that limit inquiry to the strict naturalism required by evolutionists... much less to preclude the application of legitimate scientific ideas to origins- namely information theory and design.

Science is very simply an organization of facts in an effort to reveal what is true.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. Apply that to a structure like Stonehenge.

Could it have been naturally produced by some incredible series of natural events? Yes. But the better explanation... the more scientific idea is that it was produced by intelligent effort.

Apply that idea to things like forensic science. Forensic science specifically looks for things that are not likely to occur naturally. It then seeks to employ some methodical process to theorize how the evidence came to be without limiting the alternatives by naturalism. It would be ridiculous and counter-productive to apply a naturalistic presupposition to forensics. It presupposes that some things are natural while some things are not and that it is legitimately scientific to consider both.

Evolution argues that it is not legitimate to consider both when researching origins.

By your definition, any scientific topic that disagrees with your philosophical view would hence be considered to assume naturalism. That is a false premise.

No. I have argued something that philosophers like Gould didn't deny- that evolution makes the wholly philosophical presupposition of naturalism.

I am not denying that people have a right to do this. I am denying that they have a right to not reveal the fact and that they have a right to limit science by their philosophical presuppositions.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.</font>[/QUOTE] The evidence was thought to support it. And there was resistance to considering alternatives that disputed the "accepted" view.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.</font>[/QUOTE] That is exactly... exactly what evolution does. Darwin didn't propose evolution because he saw it in nature. In fact, much of his evaluation of the evidence he cited has been found false. He set out to propose a theory of how things came to be if God didn't directly create.

The ToE is science because it starts with the evidence, and develops a theory which fits the evidence.

It starts with a philosophy. Naturalism- that all we observe in nature must be explanable by purely natural, undirected processes... then explains the evidence in those terms.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.</font>[/QUOTE] No. I'm sorry it isn't.

If there is doubt about another theory, those doubts are generally explored, ie. "Some scientists believe this... but some scientists believe that... while others believe... etc."

Not so with the age of fossils, the extinction of dinosaurs, the age of the earth, etc.

You don't seem to have a problem with which those other theories are taught.

They more adequately fit the definition of science I supplied above.

Evolution is beyond observation or experimentation. The experimentation that has been performed a) fails to provide a workable natural process for macroevolution, b) itself requires intelligent manipulation to accomplish, and c) would only serve to prove that the changes can be accomplished by an intelligent force much faster that evolution says.

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.

Evolution is not supported by the evidence. It accommodates the evidence.

For example, the rule of parsimony. Well, it really isn't a rule. When following a sequence of parsimonious explanations in phylogeny results in a roadblock... the rule is suspended. The only rule that can't be suspended is the assumption of naturalism. So people like UTE cite parsimony as favoring evolution... but if both the parsimonious answer or an alternative can be accommodated by the theory then neither can be cited as supporting the theory.

Same with homologies and analogies. Evolution accommodates both. That's fine. But you can't then turn around and claim that both homologies and analogies "support" evolution.

 

[El_Guero]

ID is just as scientific as evolution. Both are driven by prima facie investigation. Upon a closer look both have advantages and disadvantages. But, no one wants to look at either, much less both, with truly scientific method.

And because of the lack of scientific dialogue, politicians take the discussion into the realm of politics.

Therefore, let's just have a national election and decide upon what should be taught as science.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by JWI:
I am with Helen, I want warts and all. I would not mind evolution being taught, as long as opposing evidence is also taught.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I certainly learned the warts of it in college. My contention was that we should be careful with the "warts and all" topic, because it would mean that all theories would need to be taught "warts and all". Perhaps they should be, I dunno. But we CHristians (yes, even me) tend to tunnel-vision on the issue of evolution, and it tends to damage our Christians witness.

Many in ID believe the universe is old, many young. So there is not complete agreement even in ID. Show both sides.

The age of the earth, and how the earth is created, are not among the issues of ID. ID only seeks to answer the question of whether there is a designer. ID doesn't seek to argue evolution. It only seeks to answer the designer question. That is not a question for science, it is a question for philosophy. There is no question to the Christian that we have a designer, but when seeking answers on the designer, scripture is much more fruitful.

But this is not what evolutionists are about. Here is a very recent article from CBS News. First, 8 families backed by the ACLU (hard to believe) sued the local school board for allowing a single STATEMENT to be read to students before studying evolution in the 9th grade. I have read several accounts about this statement.

Actually, I discussed this topic prior, and I agree with you. I had no problem with the statement (with the exception of the "other book" statement, since evolution relies on having passed the scientific method, not on a sole other book).

Evolutionists are afraid of knowledge. They are afraid of opposing viewpoints. It is clear.

I disagree. But the place for such things is in the scientific method, not on the street. I think this is where the contention often comes in. What we Christians are often wanting to do is to take control of the scientific method to affect the outcome.

 

[Scott J]

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]If origins are going to be taught then a) they should only be taught at a maturity level that enables critical analysis, b) it should be taught as belief, not fact, and c) the first month at least should be devoted to the discussion of what a theory is and the philosophical underpinnings/presuppositions of theories on origins.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
If there is doubt about another theory, those doubts are generally explored, ie. "Some scientists believe this... but some scientists believe that... while others believe... etc."

Not so with the age of fossils, the extinction of dinosaurs, the age of the earth, etc.

I'm sorry I don't have any more time due to the short weekend, but I'd like to address this one issue you broguth up.

You said if there is doubt about another theory, those doubts are generally explored. You're right the evidence is explored and debated, and those theories are adjusted or changed to fit the findings of the evidence, in accordance with the scientific method. Evolutionary models have, indeed, been argured, deabted, and discussed over time, and the theories have also been revised and updated.

What we end up with is Christians who scream that evolution must be wrong because it hasn't changed in light of new evidence, but when it is demonstrated that evolution has indeed been revised and updated in light of new evidence, those same Christians scream that evolution must have ben wrong, or otherwise it wouldn't have been revised and updated in the first place.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:


What we end up with is Christians who scream that evolution must be wrong because it hasn't changed in light of new evidence, but when it is demonstrated that evolution has indeed been revised and updated in light of new evidence, those same Christians scream that evolution must have ben wrong, or otherwise it wouldn't have been revised and updated in the first place.

I haven't screamed either... but since you brought it up... this is exactly what evolutionists do when creationists adjust their explanations.

I have repeatedly said that evolution is possible. I have also repeatedly said that it isn't falsifiable nor subject to observation or experimentation. Therefore, if creationism is not scientific by virtue of the fact that it is not falsifiable and God cannot be studied in a test tube... then evolution fails on the very same criteria.

 

[Scott J]

Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, etc. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories in science. This is true whether you or I like it or not.

No. In this sense, evolution is not a scientific theory at all.

Macroevolution has not been observed nor has experimentation established evolution's required mechanisms. In fact, experimentation repeatedly demonstrates that species resist at the genetic level the kinds of changes that evolution requires to have occurred an almost infinite number of times.

Evolutionists explain what they see and propose primarily mind experiments as proof. They assume evolution, fashion the evidence to fit the assumption, then claim the evidence supports the assumption.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Evolution is considered to be fact by 99% of scientists. Granted these are mostly agnostic individuals, many of whom have hostile bias against Christianity.

While evolution is not proven it is supported by a good deal of evidence, albeit not truly empiric evidence.

We must be honest and teach our kids that this theory does exist. To tell them that it is a laughable theory which which has been debunked but which has been propagated by wilfully deceitful scientists - is a lie. And to tell them this will set them up for a major shock when they get to college and encounter an iconoclastic biology teacher.

Present them with intelligent design and evolution and with the biblical facts. Then let them contextualize things themselves.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Scott J:
I haven't screamed either... but since you brought it up... this is exactly what evolutionists do when creationists adjust their explanations.

That doesn't make it right, either. But I never, almost never, here creationism being discussed in the scientific arena, save this board. But I'm admittedly a layperson on the topic.

I have repeatedly said that evolution is possible. I have also repeatedly said that it isn't falsifiable nor subject to observation or experimentation. Therefore, if creationism is not scientific by virtue of the fact that it is not falsifiable and God cannot be studied in a test tube... then evolution fails on the very same criteria.

I agree with you at the onset, but when you're comparing creationism and evolution on the "test tube" issue, it's a comparison of apples an oranges. Otherwise, you'd have to throw out genetics, plate techtonics, and general relativity, since God isn't part of the equation. Evolution doesn't seek to answer "whodunnit". It seeks to answer "what does the evidence suggest". That's all. I have no problme with God using evolution as the tool for His creation, if that's how He did it. But some will tell me I must disgreard it if I'm to believe scripture according to their view of how I shoudl believe scripture.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Evolutionists are afraid of knowledge. They are afraid of opposing viewpoints. It is clear.

I disagree. But the place for such things is in the scientific method, not on the street. I think this is where the contention often comes in. What we Christians are often wanting to do is to take control of the scientific method to affect the outcome. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, I would say that philosophical naturalists have co-opted the scientific method and precluded by supposition any answer that does not agree with their philosophy. That's why they see ID as so dangerous. Not because the scientific method cannot be used with information and design theory but rather because it can... and they suspect many of the answers would be more convincing than those allowed by naturalism.

 

[Helen]

John, you are not quite right about the approach intelligent design takes. It takes the same approach another branch of science takes: forensics. In both cases the idea is to look at the'crime scene' and, first of all, determine if a crime has really been commited there and gather evidence regarding that crime.

That is long before anything can be attributed to a criminal, let alone the identity of the criminal discussed or determined.

The determination is made based on experience, probability, and even the laws of nature.

Intelligent design uses exactly the same references. Why do we look at a fountain made of stone and say "that's designed" and compare it to a pile of rocks and say "not designed"? We recognize the elements of design, in part because the elements used are doing something other than what they 'naturally' do. Marble does not naturally assemble itself into a sculpture. Arrowheads, even, are considered arrowheads and not simply bits of rock because rock does not carve itself into that particular shape -- especially over and over again.

So Bill Dembski, in the earlier days of ID, devised the Dembski filter. Look at a natural phenomenon, say, perhaps, the stamen and pistil arrangement of a flower which fertilizes the flower and produces seeds. The first question the filter asks, or the first 'layer' of the filter is 'does this happen via a natural law?' An apple will fall from a tree due to the natural law of gravity. But there is no natural law known by which plant cells will form the complex sexual reproduction organs of pistil, stamen, etc.

OK, second filter -- if there is not a natural law governing this, is there a high probability of it happening? There is, for example, a high probability of the apple bruising when it hits the ground. That is a phenomenon which would never even be thought of as a candidate for intelligent design.

But the pistil/stamen arrangement of a flower is not the result of a probable arrangement of cellular activity.

Thus the question should be asked -- does this then qualify it as possibly being intelligently designed?

You may answer yes or no. Preferably with some reasoning attached, but that is what intelligent design does.

Michael Behe proposed, in his book "Darwin's Black Box" the possibility of irreducible complexity being a sign of intelligent design. He gave several examples, one being the blood clotting cascade. Without any one of the multiple steps involved in a blood clot forming at the right place at the right time, stopping when the scab is complete, and then sloughing off when healing is complete, the organism -- like you or me -- would die. Is the blood clotting cascade a result of natural law? No, it is not. Is it the result of probability that so many steps would be assembled in that order? No, mathematically it is considered impossible.

It also appears to be irreducibly complex.

Thus it is a candidate for consideration in terms of intelligent design.

Now, where is the religion in all that? Where is the lack of science?

I would submit that ID is actually far MORE scientific than evolution!

 

[Johnv]

The problem, Helen, is that ID is not apples and apples with evolution. ID doesn't attempt to explain how something occurred, it tries to answer the question "whodunnit". Even there, it only answers with "someone dunnit". It doesn't answer the "who". In comparing ID to forensics, the best ID can do with a crime scene is to confirm that there was a perpetrator.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
I haven't screamed either... but since you brought it up... this is exactly what evolutionists do when creationists adjust their explanations.

That doesn't make it right, either. But I never, almost never, here creationism being discussed in the scientific arena, save this board. But I'm admittedly a layperson on the topic.</font>[/QUOTE] Shouldn't that tell someone like you something, who I respect as a critical thinker even in disagreement?

That the philosophy of naturalism has so limited the scientific discussion of origins that no one dare mention the possibility that nature was created?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I have repeatedly said that evolution is possible. I have also repeatedly said that it isn't falsifiable nor subject to observation or experimentation. Therefore, if creationism is not scientific by virtue of the fact that it is not falsifiable and God cannot be studied in a test tube... then evolution fails on the very same criteria.

I agree with you at the onset, but when you're comparing creationism and evolution on the "test tube" issue, it's a comparison of apples an oranges.</font>[/QUOTE] No, it really isn't. Any theory that works is addressing history. You can say something might have happened one way or another. You can even declare your presuppositions as the most reasonable. But unless you can put history in a test tube, you end up with the same problem.

Otherwise, you'd have to throw out genetics, plate techtonics, and general relativity, since God isn't part of the equation.

No you wouldn't John. That's a ridiculous assertion and you know it.

All of those things are subject to direct measurement and experimentation though plate techtonics is less so than the others. Evolution is not in any case subject to direct observation or experimentation. It is scientific only in that it seeks to classify things in a logical manner... but creationists can do that as well.

Evolution doesn't seek to answer "whodunnit".

Au contrare. It does answer "whodunnit". It says that undirected natural forces did it by random events and natural selection. It assumes nature as its own creator.

It seeks to answer "what does the evidence suggest".

No John. It seeks to explain the evidence after assuming that evolution occurred.

I have no problme with God using evolution as the tool for His creation, if that's how He did it.

I wouldn't either except that it is contrary to scripture and presumes naturalism... which is exclusive of supernaturalism.

But some will tell me I must disgreard it if I'm to believe scripture according to their view of how I shoudl believe scripture.

You can do as you think best and as the Spirit guides.

I believe scripture as it appears in context as best I can.

Genesis 1-11 is written as a narrative. It is treated as a narrative throughout the Bible to include Jesus Himself. Therefore, it is my premise... my presupposition is supernaturalism as defined by the Bible vice evolution as defined by humanists/naturalists.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by Johnv:
The problem, Helen, is that ID is not apples and apples with evolution. ID doesn't attempt to explain how something occurred, it tries to answer the question "whodunnit". Even there, it only answers with "someone dunnit". It doesn't answer the "who". In comparing ID to forensics, the best ID can do with a crime scene is to confirm that there was a perpetrator.

+

You are not listening, John. It does NOT try to answer the question of how or who -- THAT IS NOT ITS PURPOSE. All ID has to do, and all it is designed (intelligently, by the way) to do, is just what you stated: if not confirm, then at least suggest, that a 'perpetrator' be seriously considered.

But you are right that ID is not apples and apples with evolution. ID is science and evolution is not.

 

[Helen]

But I never, almost never, here creationism being discussed in the scientific arena, save this board. But I'm admittedly a layperson on the topic.

There are a number of different scientific arenas. You will hear creation science discussed in a number of them if you are aware of anything besides the mainstream hysteria over keeping 'religion' out of the classroom right now. Barry and I spend part of almost every day answering emails from SCIENTISTS who are interested in his work. More from laypeople, too, but the interesting thing is that the scientists have to ask on the sly, so they won't be discriminated against in their work.

That is a sad comment regarding the 'open-mindedness' of 'science.'

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Evolution is considered to be fact by 99% of scientists. Granted these are mostly agnostic individuals, many of whom have hostile bias against Christianity.

You might want to qualify that as "academic scientists"... even at that, I would like to see the survey that says 99%. Not that I doubt you but that sounds a little skewed for any human matter of worldview.

While evolution is not proven it is supported by a good deal of evidence, albeit not truly empiric evidence.

It accommodates the evidence. And that's fine. It doesn't prove evolution false. But it also does nothing to prove it true or "support" it.

We must be honest and teach our kids that this theory does exist.

Agreed.

To tell them that it is a laughable theory which which has been debunked but which has been propagated by wilfully deceitful scientists - is a lie.

I tell them that it is a ridiculously unlikely theory that is contradictory to the direct teachings of scripture.

I would say the scientists fall into the willfully deceived category more than willfully deceitful in most cases. Some however do fall into the willfully deceitful category... as do some who overzealously cross the boundaries of truth on the creationists side.

And to tell them this will set them up for a major shock when they get to college and encounter an iconoclastic biology teacher.

The best thing we can do is equip a young person with the truth regardless of what a godless biology teacher might do.

Present them with intelligent design and evolution and with the biblical facts. Then let them contextualize things themselves.

I agree. My kids have a basic understanding of what evolution proposes as well as some of the problems with it. As they mature, I will give them more.

I actually want my kids to be critical thinkers. I believe that the lack of critical thinking in science has led to the blind, near universal acceptance of evolution that you cited above. Few ever really consider any possibilities outside the limits evolution demands. Few ever consider the philosophies behind evolutionary thought and whether they are valid or not.

Like so many other academic endeavors, students consume and regurgitate. Indoctrination rules far more than critical thinking.

 

[Helen]

Like so many other academic endeavors, students consume and regurgitate. Indoctrination rules far more than critical thinking.

I taught for almost 30 years and I cannot begin to tell you how true that statement is, Scott. I can remember going into a new class in September and seeing 'dead' eyes -- kids who figured that all they had to do was learn enough to pass the tests and forget the rest. Kids who had had the curiosity beaten out of them through the years.

My goal during those years was not just to teach, but to wake them up again. To get them curious and challenging and discussing and thinking. Sometimes it happened. It made everything else worthwhile.
But it was hard. They were not used to being asked to actually think about something and to have their thoughts respected and discussed. They were used to being told what to think and how to answer test questions -- often so the teacher would look good and the school would continue getting the grant money it needed so badly.