Darwin vs. Creationism

Very good article, wins an insightful!

Insightful? Ur...

Classrooms are everyone's, they belong to all of us. It isn't like the "sticker on the book" folks are tramping into someone else's territory, that's their territory, too.

So now, in addition to having to sit silently while their beliefs are countered, often smugly, by people paid by public funds, Philomedy believes they should open the doors of their private institutions, so they can be imposed on there, too. Insightful? Silly is more like it.

Most Christians aren't upset about schools teaching the "facts" of evolution, it is about the misguided attempts at teaching the "truth" of evolution. Science isn't about "truth", it is about fact.

What's the difference? One is scientific, the other is philosphical. You can teach evolutionary history, the details of the theory, even the scientific data that they theory relies upon, without making values judgements. There's no reason bring "truth" into it.

What happens quite often, though, is the experience I had, in junior high, high school, and again in college. A teacher stands and uses finding after finding to "dispell the myth of creationism". They make snide "6 days" remarks, ask kids how Noah got all those animals in the ark, and do various and sundry things to degrade people's beliefs.

Not to say every teacher does this, but if you look at how the average conversation about evolution goes here at JU, it is pretty obvious that people feel the need to use such discussions to degrade beliefs.

In the end, kids don't have to believe a damn thing they learn in school in order to master the subjects they are offered. "Belief" treads further than teachers need to go. If teachers taught data and historical fact, I don't think they would have so much discussion about this.

Instead, many spend time trying to teach "truth" and belief. When they step that far, they have already stepped into the spiritual life of these kids. In other words, they are often already doing what Philomedy is asking, protected from any opposing view by the separation of church and state...

I want Darwinism in church? I cannot promise Darwinism will be taught in the church although evolution is!

Check out the gospel of John 17:21-22
That they all may be one; as thou, Father art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.

Consider in order for us to be one in Christ and He in the Father must take some powerful evolution. It's His Spirit Philomedy... It's amazing!

Good to blog to you again!

God Bless
preacherman

You want to pass around little stickers beating the deceased "Evolution is a theory" horse into the ground? Fine.

Isn't evolution a theory? What's wrong with stating that?

Evolution is a theory in the same sense that Relativity is a theory. There's a big difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

Much of our modern medical advances and advances in bioengineering are based on the theory of evolution.  The only reason at this point it's not the fact of evolution is our lack of a time machine to actually video it progressing.  But if the US wants to compete in the areas of science, it needs to teach evolutionary theory just like we need to teach our theories on gravity, electricity and magnetism, relativity, special relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. 

Very good article, wins an insightful!

Thanks.

Classrooms are everyone's, they belong to all of us. It isn't like the "sticker on the book" folks are tramping into someone else's territory, that's their territory, too.

I never said I believed that the church should be forced to teach it. I just feel that they should put their money where their mouth is. This is not about what the church should be made to do, it is just me calling the church out. I understand that as a private institution, the church can teach whatever it wants. It would just be easier to swallow if they showed some respect for what I believe as well.

I want Darwinism in church? I cannot promise Darwinism will be taught in the church although evolution is!

Frankly, I don't see why so many people think creationism and evolution are conflicting theories. I think if one looks at the intricacy of cell replication, and all of the vast number of things that have to happen in a specific way in order for evolution to occur, one finds a great argument in support of the existence of God.

Isn't evolution a theory? What's wrong with stating that?

Isn't God a theory? What's wrong with stating that?

Evolution is a theory in the same sense that Relativity is a theory. There's a big difference between a theory and a hypothesis.Much of our modern medical advances and advances in bioengineering are based on the theory of evolution. The only reason at this point it's not the fact of evolution is our lack of a time machine to actually video it progressing. But if the US wants to compete in the areas of science, it needs to teach evolutionary theory just like we need to teach our theories on gravity, electricity and magnetism, relativity, special relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.

Well said.

"I never said I believed that the church should be forced to teach it. I just feel that they should put their money where their mouth is. This is not about what the church should be made to do, it is just me calling the church out. I understand that as a private institution, the church can teach whatever it wants."

It's funny. People argue this as though the Scopes monkey trial is going on...



Respect IS the point. Take a hard look at discussion on the subject here at JU. How often do you see evolution brushed off as myth, as opposed to the enevitable stream of asinine "wit" regarding Christianity?

"It would just be easier to swallow if they showed some respect for what I believe as well."

...and your beliefs have been disrespected... how? I know lots that had to sit in class while their religion was degraded by a teacher with a piddly B.S. and a chip on his/her shoulder. It's funny how people who feel they are being attacked by a sticker on a book can NOT see how demeaning a lot of these lessons can be to kids.

As I said before, there's nothing wrong with teaching the history and facts of evolution. What happens quite often, as it does here at JU, is that the subject just gets made into a "dispelling the myths of religion" session.

At the very least direct your angst to the people who are really responsible for insulting your beliefs. If you are going to call out "the church", you might take a moment and realize that the majority of them accept evolution at least in part...

Isn't God a theory? What's wrong with stating that?

No, God's not a theory (at least in the scientific term, which is the one I'm assuming we're using, since we are discussing science).

BakerStreet, what is missing from this is the fact that religious groups have actively lobbied to enact laws forbidding the teaching of creationism. You mention Scopes. That trial was not about the relative merits of creationism or evolution, but about whether the state of Tenessee had the right to forbid the teaching of evolution in the classroom. For those not familiar, see http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm

By the way, Tenessee won. Scopes was found guilty, though this was later overturned.

Don't think that this is ancient history. Here is a listing of cases where States and schoolboards have attempted to enact laws forbidding the teaching of evolution: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3747_8_major_court_decisions_agains_2_15_2001.asp

The most recent is in 2000 (that page was last updated in 2001, there may be more) and deals with a teacher in Minnesota who argued for his right to present "evidence both for and against the theory" of evolution, something that I would agree with as long as it is handled in an appropriate manner. But the court replied that he had to stick to the curriculum.

Please note that in every case the issue was about laws restricting or requiring qualification before teaching evolution. To use a historical analogy, Gallileo did not try to stop the Pope from teaching religion, the Pope stopped Gallileo from teaching science.

The basic thrust of these decisions is that creation is tied to religion. There is no non-religious evidence for it. It does not belong in secular schools. There is significant evidence for evolution and it should be so presented.

Kupe: I agree with you. I don't think religion belongs in schools, and honestly I don't think creationism should be taught in science class.

That said... I don't think science should be taught in such a way as to demean religion. As I said above, you can teach the facts of evolution, the history, and even the scientific findings without elaborating on the "truth" of evolution, or using it to "dispel myths".

The reason I bring up Scopes (I lived about 40 miles from the court house at one time) is these are different times. The cases you set forth are nothing comperable. All of those cases, forgive me for pointing out, sought a balance, not an overall ban on teaching evolution.

Granted, the effort for balance was taken too far. How many, though, were in response to curriculum that may well have been insensitive to the feelings of religious students? I think such cases are far more often backlash than overt attacks on the separation of church and state.

In many cases evolution IS taught in such a way to put it purposefully at odds with religious beliefs. It need not be so, and when it is related this way it provokes a response like the ones you cite. I don't think textbooks need stickers. I do, however know of particular teachers who should have been fired for how they taught evolution, demeaning and ridiculing the beliefs of kids.

So, respect begets respect. Philomedy seems to want respect from churches that isn't being given them. Creationism is hardly ever dealt with sensitively here at JU, and hardly ever anywhere else. Creationists are painted to be "the Pope vs. Galileo", when in actuality most are comfortable sharing the world, and even their own belief system, with Evolution.

its 'inciteful' posts like this that are really starting to reduce my internet use. btw, bakerstreet echoed my thoughts perfectly.

Look:

Philomedy has never attacked religion. Philomedy has never done anything but let religion be. I don't see how you get "Philomedy wants this" or "Philomedy wants that" from the original post, because Philomedy would be quite content to have the church leave him alone.

Also, while I'm on the subject, let me clarify that I use the term "the church" not to refer to all of the people who reconcile beliefs after making up their own minds, but to the select few who lead ridiculous crusades to lead ridiculous crusades to put stickers on books. It is against these people that I originally posted, and against their intolerance for my beliefs that my rant was directed against. These people are so concerned that all possible explanations be covered in school; why aren't they so concerned that the same happen in church?

Very well. Raise a protest. But who's gonna care? The saddest thing is that you always need more voices than one.

One thing that Darwin & Creationism have in common is, both concepts are based on books that many are willing to quote, without bothering to actually read. ;~D

"Also, while I'm on the subject, let me clarify that I use the term "the church" not to refer to all of the people who reconcile beliefs after making up their own minds, but to the select few who lead ridiculous crusades to lead ridiculous crusades to put stickers on books. "

No surprise there. Almost every conversation I have at JU that lashes out at "Christians", or "The Church", or "Religion" always ends up with the belligerant end admitting they were only talking about a particular subset; a small minority in this case.

Similarly, my biology teacher in junior high had no idea of our religious beliefs. That didn't stop him from offering "Despite what your preacher tells you..." and "Contrary to Christian myths..." over and over when he taught Darwinism.

Respect begets respect.

I suggest you get over it and see it as lash and backlash. Religion isn't in science class, and hasn't been for a while. You can pretend that unbiased science is under attack from wacko religion, but the fact is there is a ton of give-and-take on either side.

The difference is the Constitution only addresses one side of the abuse in public school. The other is left to demean and degrade as it likes, since it isn't officially considered a "belief system", even though it is.

No inciteful here. Amusing? Yeah, and more than a bit of irony but not really inciteful.

Evolution is a verifiable fact. To put it in terms that people can understand all you have to do is look at something like the AIDS virus. It adapts and changes over time. That is evolution.

The problem when evolution is applied to the earth and (here is the real stumbling block when discussing the subject with the devout religious aka Creationists) Man is that those of a conservative religious bent would have to, by definition, abandon their beliefs to even consider the subject. I'll stick to generality and not bother to quote verse, but the Christian religion teaches that Man was created in God's image and that Man is a higher form than anything else in the animal kingdom. Case closed. There cannot be any evolution for Man from a religious point of view.

In Kansas (among other places) the Christians would like to ban the teaching of evolution all together. To get around the court system and at the same time undermine the science curriculum in schools they are proposing the idea of "intelligent design", that some invisible incorporeal being (they are very careful not to mention God) in fact designed life in all it's forms. I guess it is convenient to ignore the fact that scientific method can be used to prove (or disprove) evolution. What CANNOT be tested by scientific method is the idea that an invisible incorporeal being is the cause of everything.

Oh well, the whole discussion of creationism vs. evolution is generally a waste of time in this type forum.

Bring on the vouchers, then you can send your kids anywhere you want that teaches what you want.

I have problems thinking we are all some kind of :COSMIC ACCIDENT: so Creationism is my belief THERE. Evolution is something I believe in also, in the sense we are evolving, Larger bodies, higher intelligence {except for democrats} heh heh heh j/k Cannot the 2 go hand in hand?

Reply By: PhilomedyPosted: Sunday, February 13, 2005Look:Philomedy has never attacked religion. Philomedy has never done anything but let religion be. I don't see how you get "Philomedy wants this" or "Philomedy wants that" from the original post, because Philomedy would be quite content to have the church leave him alone.

This is just typical the reader "seeing what they want to see" then commenting on what they wanted to see... I been pissy about this for long time.

"Isn't God a theory? What's wrong with stating that?"

No, God is not a theory. It is a hypothesis , which tries to explain the world just like relativity was initially a hypotheisis attempting to explain the nature of space & time. However, the crucial difference is that relativity has stood the test of scientific rigor. Its predictions have been confirmed by experiments to an amazing degree of accuracy and thats why it has been accepted as a bonafide theory in scientific circles. Relativity may not be truth(and most likely it is not as it is at loggerheads with another amazingly successful theory of quantum mechanics) and may be some future theory may replace it just like it replaced newtonian theory. This is where hypothesis of God and a theory like relativity differs. The hypothesis of God doesnot make any predictions which an impartial, independent person can verify or refute. To put it bluntly, God is a matter of faith devoid of rationality (which is not necessarily a bad thing, not everything in the world can be explained by rationality), however, science by its very definition stands on the foundation of rationality. Science has to observe something to verify or refute , which is its strength as well as weakness. It is its strength because this allows science to constantly evolve itself, keep itself progressing, it is a weakness because some matters are out of its reach particularly the matters of mind & heart. This is where faith comes in as it tries to deal with matters which are out of the reach of rational human beings and science. Faith is a personal matter, science is not . A scientific fact is a scientific fact regardless of your race, religion and beliefs.

God, in any culture, is the ultimate expression of life's mystery. It is our search for this mystery that led to the theory of evolution. It confounds me why creationists cannot accept that evolution, for which there is strong scientific basis, could very possibly be God's tool in the formation of man's earthly form. To reject evolution is to reject many of the same theories that we rely upon in our daily lives. Do away with evolution if you must, but cease the hypocrasy: throw out your cars, your computer... your electrical utilities. To reject one is to reject all, to accept one is to accept all. Its not magic kiddos, its just the way things work. Don't limit God just because you've been taught something ignorant.

Me, I don't think God enters into this discussion, strange as it may seem.

The problem, as I have stated, isn't that God needs to be taught in school. On the contrary, there's no reason to ever mention religion, religious beliefs, or God at all in a discussion of science. Why, then, does it always seem to?

You aren't seeing "I dint come frum no dern munky" here on this blog, and yet look at what we are dealt with in return. It is perfectly okay to call people of faith "irrational", evidently.

In many cases, as I have said, it is posed as an alternative to religious belief. I have witnessed it in three different state sponsered institutions, in two states, just in my own experience. As I said above, new findings were always framed as "Dispeling myths" or refuting religious superstitions.

That isn't teaching scientific fact, that is countering religious thought. That practice by someone in a public capacity is just as forbidden by the separation of church and state as a minister teaching Christian doctrine.

So sure, when people are allowed to insult and belittle people's beliefs, and those people are mandated by the state to keep their mouths shut and take it, there's going to be backlash.

Most Christians aren't upset about the facts of Darwinism being taught. Again, it is the fact that they are often taught as AN ALTERNATIVE TO RELIGION. The idea of Christianity being an alternative to Darwinism, though, is anathema.

Such an attitude is just as abusive as any excercise in state sponsered religion. Neither attitude has a place in school.

It confounds me why creationists cannot accept that evolution, for which there is strong scientific basis, could very possibly be God's tool in the formation of man's earthly form.

My thoughts exactly.

Most Christians aren't upset about the facts of Darwinism being taught. Again, it is the fact that they are often taught as AN ALTERNATIVE TO RELIGION. The idea of Christianity being an alternative to Darwinism, though, is anathema.Such an attitude is just as abusive as any excercise in state sponsered religion. Neither attitude has a place in school.

Well said...I think perhaps I missed your point when you stated it earlier.

Hahahaha...I love it!

You are one entertaining guy, Philomedy!

You are one entertaining guy, Philomedy!

Philomedy aims to please.