Well, My Opinion Of The US Public Just Went Down Again...

[Mikey]

I prefer our method: "This is what happens. Here's why it happens. Here's how we know it happens."
No mention at all of creationism, ID, or any other crazy "alternatives".

That's incredibly dangerous, not to mention irresponsible. You decide which of any alternatives is "correct," and decide not to teach any of the others. It's bad enough to have an individual decide what kids should and shouldn't learn; but soon, you're also teaching kids not to even look at or for alternatives.


Everybody's missing the main point of the debate, though; this doesn't need to be a contest between Creationist dogma and Darwinian dogma. I have a perfectly-kept belief system that embraces both the idea of a Creator deity AND evolution/natural selection. Creationism and evolution are answers to two disparate questions.

[Mikey]

*EDIT* Let me clarify; in the first part of my response above, I'm speaking not of this particular issue, but of the idea of selecting one of many alternative ideas to teach, and deciding not to educate kids about even teh existence of opposing viewpoints.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

*EDIT* Let me clarify; in the first part of my response above, I'm speaking not of this particular issue, but of the idea of selecting one of many alternative ideas to teach, and deciding not to educate kids about even teh existence of opposing viewpoints.

Yes, that makes sense now.

Now I don't mean to criticize, but could you elucidate how you reconcile evolution and creationanist belief? Were you referring to "embracing" both as literal truth? As I said earlier, many scientists are and have been men of faith, and as I also said, religion and science (and art, and philosophy, and technology) are merely different expressions of the same overall desire to grow. Even if I myself lack religious conviction and I wouldn't have expressed the idea of coexistence quite as you have, I am well aware that many feel no need to strictly separate the two.

[Mikey]

I've mentioned in various other philosophical discussions here, but basically:

As I mentioned, I believe that religion and science aim to answer different questions; more specifically, that religion seeks to explain "why" and science aims to answer "how." In this instance, I don't think that creationism (with a lower-case "c") precludes evolution. Having a Creator who sets in motion the beginnings of life, and provides for/sets in motion the process of evolution through natural selection in no way precludes His status as Creator. In other words, I don't see the idea of just planting every species the way we see it today in a static ecological niche as necessary to the idea of the whole process being begun by a deity.

In this manner, I very easily include both ideas - that things were, in fact, kicked off by an act of creation, while I accept that evolution explains the process by which life came to look as we see it now.

[Sionnach Glic]

That's incredibly dangerous, not to mention irresponsible. You decide which of any alternatives is "correct," and decide not to teach any of the others. It's bad enough to have an individual decide what kids should and shouldn't learn; but soon, you're also teaching kids not to even look at or for alternatives.

They are thought to look for alternative possibilities. And if there were any other alternatives that made sense, then they would likely be thought. But the simple fact is that creationism and intelligent design are not logical alternatives. Both of those beliefs are indeed thought, but they're thought in religion class, not biology class.

*EDIT* Let me clarify; in the first part of my response above, I'm speaking not of this particular issue, but of the idea of selecting one of many alternative ideas to teach, and deciding not to educate kids about even teh existence of opposing viewpoints.

Should we also teach geo-centricism in geography class? After all, that's an alternative to the currently accepted scientific belief that the Earth revolves around the sun.

When there are opposing views that make sense, they are thought. But as I pointed out above, neither Creationism nor ID fit that bill.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

I've mentioned in various other philosophical discussions here, but basically:

As I mentioned, I believe that religion and science aim to answer different questions; more specifically, that religion seeks to explain "why" and science aims to answer "how." In this instance, I don't think that creationism (with a lower-case "c") precludes evolution. Having a Creator who sets in motion the beginnings of life, and provides for/sets in motion the process of evolution through natural selection in no way precludes His status as Creator. In other words, I don't see the idea of just planting every species the way we see it today in a static ecological niche as necessary to the idea of the whole process being begun by a deity.

In this manner, I very easily include both ideas - that things were, in fact, kicked off by an act of creation, while I accept that evolution explains the process by which life came to look as we see it now.

Thanks. Interestingly enough, I myself as an athiest might have suggested this very notion as a way to reconcile belief in a creator with modern science. Unfortunately, many believe in Creationism with a capitol 'C' and insist on seeing the words of the Old Testament as a literal truth, 6000 years and 7 days and all, thus making modern science a direct contradiction in a way it wouldn't be if they properly viewed the Bible as a moral guide and not as a history textbook.

The idea of Creationism as literal truth would have made sense to people WHEN THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE WERE WRITTEN because well, science as we understand it now didn't exist then. There was no such debate by default.

[Sionnach Glic]

I've mentioned in various other philosophical discussions here, but basically:

As I mentioned, I believe that religion and science aim to answer different questions; more specifically, that religion seeks to explain "why" and science aims to answer "how." In this instance, I don't think that creationism (with a lower-case "c") precludes evolution. Having a Creator who sets in motion the beginnings of life, and provides for/sets in motion the process of evolution through natural selection in no way precludes His status as Creator. In other words, I don't see the idea of just planting every species the way we see it today in a static ecological niche as necessary to the idea of the whole process being begun by a deity.

In this manner, I very easily include both ideas - that things were, in fact, kicked off by an act of creation, while I accept that evolution explains the process by which life came to look as we see it now.

And that's absolutely fine with me. If you hold the belief that God simply gave the ball a little nudge to get the whole thing rolling, then that's fine. We've no idea what caused the universe to come into existance, so if you want to blame that on God then feel free. I see that as being a more "healthy" brand of religion, in any case, and I do agree with you that accepting scientific explainations for how the universe works does not necessarily preclude the existance of a superior being.

[Mikey]

Should we also teach geo-centricism in geography class?

No, you should teach it in geology or astronomy. Seriously, I'm not saying (to use your example) that geocentrism should be taught as a viable theory - rather that it should be taught as a theory that had been held popularly at one point, and further taught how this theory was critically and rationally discarded.

Unfortunately, many believe in Creationism with a capitol 'C' and insist on seeing the words of the Old Testament as a literal truth, 6000 years and 7 days and all, thus making modern science a direct contradiction in a way it wouldn't be if they properly viewed the Bible as a moral guide and not as a history textbook.

The idea of Creationism as literal truth would have made sense to people WHEN THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE WERE WRITTEN because well, science as we understand it now didn't exist then. There was no such debate by default.

Unfortunately, to accept my way of thinking one must necessarily discard any thought of fundamentalism relating to Scripture.

to blame that

I see that as being a more "healthy" brand of religion, in any case, and I do agree with you that accepting scientific explainations for how the universe works does not necessarily preclude the existance of a superior being.

Again, it also requires the absence of fundamentalism - which absence is its own reward.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

As an aside, the way I might have chosen to understand things is that God established the laws of nature as science is slowly learning to understand them. As Rochey (Sionnach) notes, there is no contradiction here since Physics can happily answer the "what" to your hearts content but not the "how" the Laws of physics came to be. It is known that Newton himself felt his scientific work as a way to better understand God...

[Sionnach Glic]

No, you should teach it in geology or astronomy.

Pfft, details.

Seriously, I'm not saying (to use your example) that geocentrism should be taught as a viable theory - rather that it should be taught as a theory that had been held popularly at one point, and further taught how this theory was critically and rationally discarded.

Ah, I think I see what you mean. We shouldn't teach it as "this may also be true", but as "this viewpoint is popular in some places and you may run into it, and this is why it's wrong". In that case, I'd be perfectly fine.

Again, it also requires the absence of fundamentalism - which absence is its own reward.

Aye, that sort of religion is fine with me.

On another note, I'm just after seeing the ad for this Darwin film on the TV. It actualy looks pretty good.

[sunnyside]

Part of the issue here is the convolution of history and science to suit atheist needs.

Take, I don't know, some of those ruins down in Africa. I believe there is still some debate over exactly how they were constructed. Science can tell you ways they could have been constructed, and it could explain the mechanical forces that keep them from collapsing. But it can't say exactly how they were contstructed. Maybe they actually used a different method than what would be the simplest. That's an element of history that could have come about in a number of different ways.

Similarly science can't pretend to know how life started. It can propose ways it could have started. It can explain the lipids in your body that make it continue. But maybe in the end Star Trek is right and the planet was seeded by an alien species. In fact it's very possible what they teach now is quite wrong, even from an Atheistic point of view. For example maybe it wasn't lightning at all, but instead a pressure wave from a meteorite. Or pehapse life actually started on mars and a chunk of rock smashed into space brought it over. Pretending you have the one true answer is simply dogmatic.

Actually as an aside I find too much of science in general is taught from far to certain a place. For example who else is old enough to remember when they taught that Brontosaurs had legs bowed out to the side, and had to be in water to support their mass? Now they have straight legs, can stand on their own, and it turns out that "Brontosaur" is a misclassification. Now the issue isn't that there were some incorrect beliefs. It happens all the time, and you do what you can with what you've got. I just feel the certainty with which things are expressed reduces critical thinking.

This is a real problem in more practical science. For example in Millikan's famous oil drop experiment he actually got the wrong value, because he used a slightly wrong value for the viscosity of air. It took ages for science to work this out, not because people reproducing the experiment didn't get the correct values, but because they figured they must be wrong and so did the experiment again until it was closer to Millikan's number. So instead of going straightaway to the correct value, things sorts of slowly moved in the right direction.

I've been in academia long enough to know that this sort of stuff goes on far to often.

EDIT: Geez, this thread is moving too quick there are five posts that popped up between starting and finishing typing this.
Seems like we're actually coming closer to something resembling agreement actually.

[IanKennedy]

One thing to clarify here is that if you looked at whether Americans believe in things like mutations, that if you wipe out all the white moths you'll be left with brown moths, or that domesticated horses have been changing since ancient history I don't think you'd have to many opposing that.

However, as is more or less being demonstrated here, what is typically meant in the US by THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, is that Atheism is the one true religion, all praise the prophet Darwin.

I know of no atheist that thinks this way. It's an invention from the theists to gain support for their fear that it somehow is a conspiracy to kill off god.

And that is what many people have a problem with.

And it really gets to the level of dogma with the crap thrown at some things like Intelligent Design and such, which basically says that everything proceeds as science predicts, but there was a force behind it, perhaps causing some random amino acids to flip periodically to guide things. So it has the same predictions etc, you can pull out the Razor all you like, while an occasionally useful rule of thumb you don't have people from the different branches of quantum mechanics going after each other with it. And certainly it's often wrong. And frankly it only favors lightning in bacteria because your basic premis is "given that there is nothing supernatural, Occams razor says there isn't anything supernatural". There are massivly unlikely odds in evolution, which are usually waved off by saying "well, we're here aren't we?"

And in any case for any form of practical science it doesn't matter if dinosaur bones were but there by god or the devil, were killed off in the biblical flood, were intelligently designed, or just happened through chance. I really wish a lot of people would back off the issue so the country could move forward better in the areas of science and engineering we need to.

[Mikey]

Atheism is the one true religion

Isn't that sort of like saying, "Anarchists - unite and conquer?" I've never encountered an atheist who really cares too much about how somebody else believes. They may question the belief system of a believer, may even say that it appears nonsensical to themselves, but proselytization doesn't seem to be part of any atheist agenda.

As an aside, the way I might have chosen to understand things is that God established the laws of nature as science is slowly learning to understand them. As Rochey (Sionnach) notes, there is no contradiction here since Physics can happily answer the "what" to your hearts content but not the "how" the Laws of physics came to be. It is known that Newton himself felt his scientific work as a way to better understand God...

Exactly my point. The bonus side effect is that the continual espansion of our scientific knowledge buttresses my faith, rather than erodes it.

[IanKennedy]

I personally like the way it was done at our school. When we went into the Evolution Unit, it was explained that this was sciences explanation for the way live has come to be and grown throughout the history of the earth, if you don't believe it fine, but you can still learn it so you know what it is your up against. They also pointed out that they don't teach religious values because as a public school they would have to teach all creationism theories, from christianity, Judism, Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, ect. and they don't have that kind of time, if you want a creationist theory go to your church they teach it all the time.

Don't forget the flying spaghetti monster. If you are going to teach one you have to teach all then you've got to include that one. At this point the world doesn't have the time to do this.

That said, they also allowed students out of the unit if they and their parents didn't want it taught to them. They got put through some other unit of work, so it wasn't like they were allowed to slack off at all. I don't know anyone that took that option so I'm not exactly sure what they do.

That's bollocks. They should teach science. If they want to know about religion then they can go to their church (by any name) and get plenty of instruction there. Parents should not be able to opt their children out of parts of the curriculum.

[IanKennedy]

I prefer our method: "This is what happens. Here's why it happens. Here's how we know it happens."
No mention at all of creationism, ID, or any other crazy "alternatives".

That's incredibly dangerous, not to mention irresponsible. You decide which of any alternatives is "correct," and decide not to teach any of the others. It's bad enough to have an individual decide what kids should and shouldn't learn; but soon, you're also teaching kids not to even look at or for alternatives.


Everybody's missing the main point of the debate, though; this doesn't need to be a contest between Creationist dogma and Darwinian dogma. I have a perfectly-kept belief system that embraces both the idea of a Creator deity AND evolution/natural selection. Creationism and evolution are answers to two disparate questions.

No it isn't you do what schools have always done. They teach current scientific thinking, not alternatives to that. Nobody has ever complained that science classes teach gravity, but not the theory that we are all held down onto the planet by the noodley appendage from the flying spaghetti monster. Nor should they, they should teach science, not religion.