-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"Intelligent design belittles God"
- Thread starter Gina B
- Start date
KenH
Well-Known Member
If Christians don't want their children taught about evolution, then they should either enroll them in a Christian school, homeschool them, or counter what they are taught in government school science class by teaching them about creation at home.
A major problem with having government schools is that everyone wants the government to teach subjects the way that they want them taught. It becomes an "all or nothing" political brouhaha.
If we are going to have government schools then they should answerable only to the local school board as to what is taught. The state and federal governments should stay of out of it. Unfortunately, that isn't the way it is and I am not optimistic that that will change anytime soon. Thus, the options that I listed in the first paragraph.
A major problem with having government schools is that everyone wants the government to teach subjects the way that they want them taught. It becomes an "all or nothing" political brouhaha.
If we are going to have government schools then they should answerable only to the local school board as to what is taught. The state and federal governments should stay of out of it. Unfortunately, that isn't the way it is and I am not optimistic that that will change anytime soon. Thus, the options that I listed in the first paragraph.
Who said ID was a Christian, or even monotheistic, concept? It is neither, at least not to any exclusivity. Yet there is no shortage of Christians who hagn all their coats on ID, and for the life os me, I could never understand why.
Personally, I have no problem with ID being taught as a matter of broad philosophy. But that's about all it's good for.
If a Buddhist or Muslim had come up with it, we'd all be condemning it as some sort of occultic notion.
Personally, I have no problem with ID being taught as a matter of broad philosophy. But that's about all it's good for.
If a Buddhist or Muslim had come up with it, we'd all be condemning it as some sort of occultic notion.
I would prefer that schools make no assumptions about OOL. If evolution must be taught then it should be taught much more honestly. I have been watching a video "Icons of Evolution". In part, it accounts a Washington state teacher who is in trouble for teaching too much about evolution... including its flaws, gaps, assumptions, etc. He is being too thorough and for that he's being persecuted.
Ironically, he was forbidden from having his students read an articles by Gould and other evolutionists as outside assignments when they honestly revealed problems with the theory.
The teaching of ID or creation wouldn't be necessary if science books were stripped of false info supporting evolution such as Haeckl-like embryo drawings and if teachers were allowed to be honest about the philosophical assumptions behind evolution and its scientific flaws/failings.
Ironically, he was forbidden from having his students read an articles by Gould and other evolutionists as outside assignments when they honestly revealed problems with the theory.
The teaching of ID or creation wouldn't be necessary if science books were stripped of false info supporting evolution such as Haeckl-like embryo drawings and if teachers were allowed to be honest about the philosophical assumptions behind evolution and its scientific flaws/failings.
The Galatian
Active Member
Of course, we should remember that evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life.
Darwin, who had no idea how life began, attributed it to God, without saying how.
There are lots of problems with biology and evolution, just as there are lots of problems with chemistry and physics. These sciences have dozens of journals dedicated to problems in their respective sciences.
They just aren't the ones Wells wants us to believe.
Darwin, who had no idea how life began, attributed it to God, without saying how.
There are lots of problems with biology and evolution, just as there are lots of problems with chemistry and physics. These sciences have dozens of journals dedicated to problems in their respective sciences.
They just aren't the ones Wells wants us to believe.
The "problem" is that "science" doesn't want evidence against evolution presented at all... much less having honest discussions about competing philosophies of science.
BTW, since you are nit-picking, I intended OOL to include all of the means by which life ended up in its present form and not just biogenesis by whatever method. None the less, evolution does make claims about the origin of life. It proposes among other things that however it happened it must be explainable through natural laws.
BTW, since you are nit-picking, I intended OOL to include all of the means by which life ended up in its present form and not just biogenesis by whatever method. None the less, evolution does make claims about the origin of life. It proposes among other things that however it happened it must be explainable through natural laws.
That's not true. The problem is that such evidence typically doesn't pass peer review, which is one of the steps in the scientific method. In all areas of science, such as chemistry, physics, etc, evidence that does not pass peer review is not considered. With the exception of perhaps geocentrists, few complain about peer-rejected evidence being unpresented.
That's not true. The problem is that such evidence typically doesn't pass peer review, which is one of the steps in the scientific method.</font>[/QUOTE] That simply isn't true John. Specifically, the teacher in Washington state wanted to introduce an article by Gould denouncing the use of Haekel embryo drawings. The exec director for science education acknowledged that science had long rejected those drawings as being accurate... yet his school supt. disallowed the info.
So if the foxes agree that the door to the hen house should be left open... they must be right, right?
It is hardly a legitimate argument to say that a "scientists" who have been indoctrinated their whole education and careers with the presumption that evolution is true... whose careers may very well hinge on assenting to evolution should be the arbitors of what criticism should be accepted.
This particular science teacher wanted to present peer reviewed discoveries from China... He was disallowed because they contradict the "truths" presented in the text book.
The stiffling of criticism in the name of "expertise" that you are arguing for is not dissimilar from the activities that allowed the national rationalization of Nazi genocide... or suppression of real scientific advancements in the past.
Denying the presentation of unpopular but valid ideas just because they are critical of the "official position" is not "scientific".
BTW, if a new archeological find demonstrated that a history book was wrong... a teacher would be celebrated for having kids read an outside article that corrected the error. This is more proof that evolution isn't an honest science... the knee jerk reactions of its faithful followers to any interruption in the indoctrination process by truth or honesty.
One cannot accuse evolution of not being honest science without acknowleging the same about YECism. But the topic here is neither YECism, nor is it evolution, nor is it anything in between. The topic is ID. ID is incredibly bad science, and has no place in the science class. It's good philosophy, and I have no prblme with it being discussed in a phisolophy class. As far as ID being a Christian, or even monotheistic, concept, it isn't. Yet there is no shortage of Christians who hang all their coats on ID. If a Buddhist or Muslim had come up with it, we'd all be condemning it as some sort of occultic notion.
I disagree. Criticism has been more than plentious of YEC ideas. It is not taught as an unquestionable dogma in the public schools.
In fact, YEC is much different today than it was even 10 years ago. Many arguments have not only been discarded... they've been discarded because other YEC's have either disproved them or forced the issue to a head... notably ICR's disagreement with Hovind.
Has YEC been wrong on certain things? Yes. Have some resisted admitting it? Yes. Have undeniable proofs or disproofs been widely rejected? No. They have fostered new explanations which is what must be done with a working theory.
But that isn't what is happening with evolution education. Not all but certainly many "science" educators resist efforts to present the weaknesses in ToE.
It has every bit as much place in a science class as macroevolution does.
It is "good" science more so than evolution since it allows a greater span of possibilities than those limited by the naturalistic assumption.
If someone proposed a naturalistic assumption for forensic science, everyone would agree that such a concept would render the science useless. Science does have the capacity to recognize and theorize the effects of intelligent or non-natural forces. This is also the rule concerning archeology.
There is nothing inherently unscientific about applying this to origins/natural history. It is every bit as reasonable to accept non-natural causes as it is to preclude them.
If evolution is to be taught at all, it also should be restricted to philosophy since the whole idea stands and falls not on evidence but on the presupposition of naturalism... that everything in nature is the result of natural causes strictly obeying natural law without intelligent interference at all.
Ultimately, evolution is based on a metaphysic... not data.
Agreed. And I would say that it is dangerous to bind one's self too tightly to it.
That said, it is providing valuable research that contradicts evolution.
Kind of doubt that in my case.
I don't buy the notion that evolution is inherently Christian by any stretch.
I disagree with you, Scott, in some of the things you said. But I do appreciate your respectful tone for others on the topic. Such respect is very lacking when this topic is discussed (which is why I rarely put in my $.02).
I can only speak for myself on YEC vs nonYEC topics. I have no problem looking at any and all evidence on the topic. Not for the purpose of "disproving" anything, but for the purpose of discussing what theories explain the evidence the best. I myself hever have a bias towards or against one or the other. My comments on attitudes are typically about the attitides of those who often take one side or another. We can disagree on the evidence, but don't need to beat each other up while doing it. Take it from me, a former YEC hperliteralist and former KJVOist, doing so produces no fruit worthy of a Christian (yes, believe it or not, in my early Christian walk, you'd have thought I was Jack Chick and Kent Hovind put in a blender... thank God for spiritual growth
).
Okay, I'm off my soapbox now.
As far as ID (and ID alone, not YEC or evolution), I reiterate what I said earlier. It does not qualifyas science. But it qualifies as philosophy, and I have no problem with it being taught as such. It is reasonably good philosophy, but, like Pascal's Wager, is by no means exclusive to Christianity, or even monotheism. Despite that, I still think it's good philosophy.
I can only speak for myself on YEC vs nonYEC topics. I have no problem looking at any and all evidence on the topic. Not for the purpose of "disproving" anything, but for the purpose of discussing what theories explain the evidence the best. I myself hever have a bias towards or against one or the other. My comments on attitudes are typically about the attitides of those who often take one side or another. We can disagree on the evidence, but don't need to beat each other up while doing it. Take it from me, a former YEC hperliteralist and former KJVOist, doing so produces no fruit worthy of a Christian (yes, believe it or not, in my early Christian walk, you'd have thought I was Jack Chick and Kent Hovind put in a blender... thank God for spiritual growth
Okay, I'm off my soapbox now.
As far as ID (and ID alone, not YEC or evolution), I reiterate what I said earlier. It does not qualifyas science. But it qualifies as philosophy, and I have no problem with it being taught as such. It is reasonably good philosophy, but, like Pascal's Wager, is by no means exclusive to Christianity, or even monotheism. Despite that, I still think it's good philosophy.
I wouldn't propose that we use any of the three in biology. It isn't necessary to the task of learning how things are and how they work. You don't have to make any assumption or even address how they came to be that way.
Further, even biologists that believe in evolution often refer to DNA or biological systems being "designed" or "built"... You simply don't have to ask or answer the question of how they were built for science to move forward.
If the argument could be made that it is necessary then the counter argument would be that evolution is so frequently wrong in its predictions that it should specifically not be used... whether ID is adopted as a replacement or not.
Further, even biologists that believe in evolution often refer to DNA or biological systems being "designed" or "built"... You simply don't have to ask or answer the question of how they were built for science to move forward.
If the argument could be made that it is necessary then the counter argument would be that evolution is so frequently wrong in its predictions that it should specifically not be used... whether ID is adopted as a replacement or not.
The Galatian
Active Member
Sort of like when it became clear that Gould and Eldridge were right about punctuated equillibrium,and science teachers showed that to their students?
It's just proof you don't know very much about it. As Everett Dirkson used to say, people are generally down on things they aren't up on. If you learned what evolutionary theory was, at very least, you'd be more effective fighting it.
Now you know better. Evolutionary theory has been modified numerous times, as new evidence indicated. We celebrate such events, as it increase the usefulness and accuracy of the theory.
Here's a hint: If you want to learn about capitalism, don't ask Fidel Castro to tell you about it.
And yes, intelligent design is predicated on an inferior being producing the world. Christianity depends on an omnipotent Creator, not some "designer."