Against the Ropes with Darwin: The Imminent End of Evolution Theory

[Forest-Pine]

WORWOOD:

Quote:
what is often categorized as “science” is in fact atheistic philosophy or religion.

Often huh? Name three instances.

1. My major university biology professor who regularly called me out in class and graded me far lower because of my extra-curricular work that was faith related.
2. The administration which supported my biology professor stating that my extra-curricular faith-related activities were attacking the professor’s belief system.
3. My cultural anthropology professor (which at the time was in the hard sciences dept but has now switched into soft science) who said the “proof” of the same stories of God being found in so many cultures is proof that God cannot exist, and his picking a fight with any religious person who dared argue with him. He also graded on a scale of A=you regurgitated well and F=you are an outspoken religious (of any type) and B-D=how much hope I have of converting you to atheism and liberalism. His other favorite discussion (besides the preaching of atheism as an absolute) was in attacking patriotism, which was running rather high at the time. He was so far gone that about 95% of his classes complained so loudly he was fired (and the subsequent switch into soft sciences occured). With the political climate having shifted in the opposite direction of late, the class wouldn’t have complained so loudly about his anti-patriotism and he would still be focusing on atheism were he there today.

 

[buffalo]

Wormwood:

I am sure you think this is funny, but you are really just stressing my point that the statement is question was made without forthought. Also it is not indicative that evelution is atheistic. Even if you try to prop up the pitiful argument that by contradicting “the bible” that it is somehow atheistic, you have to prove that doctrine of evelution specifically discounts God. What about religions that don’t have strict traditions of creationism, or what if their religion believed in evelution? Is it still considered “atheistic” for them? You can not call something that conflicts with your religion “atheistic” based soley on those grounds.

I rolled on the floor after I posted it.

This has been covered greatly in other threads. Atheistic evolution is atheistic. :banghead: When scientists and profs make claims that evolution proves God does not exist, it is a religious belief in itself. A presumption of evolution defenders is that God is not required and the proofs go on from there made to fit.

 

[Forest-Pine]

Wormwood,

I think we can maybe agree here.

Science sticking to the realm of science and not stepping beyond into phiosophy, etc is the ideal.

However, it is not the practice in many places where a science teacher sees an opportunity to use his platform to criticize faith.

As a friend of mine recently wrote, she was visiting a national park where excavations of dinosaur bones are occuring. Driving through the gorgeous landscape and seeing the bones she commented, “I can’t see how anyone, after seeing this, can not believe in evolution! How can they believe in a God?” To her, the two are linked, synonymous. She is a devout atheist BECAUSE she believes in science. Scienctists, doctors, and psychologists are the professions most likely to be atheists.

While you are talking about “in a bubble” I am talking about the common reality of the real world.

So can we agree that if a science teacher makes such conclusions about faith or God or what-have-you that it has no place in a science classroom?

 

[Wormwood]

1. My major university biology professor who regularly called me out in class and graded me far lower because of my extra-curricular work that was faith related

What does the character and personality of your professor have to do with the scientific community as a whole? This is a weak and even unverifiable defense to your claim. You have no instances in which the scientific community classifies atheistic philosophy or religion as science.

He also graded on a scale of A=you regurgitated well and F=you are an outspoken religious

You are starting to paint a more clear picture of what was probably going on. You were not there to teach, but to “regurgitate” as you say. It is very disruptive when some person raises their hand with a disputing comment every 2 minutes…if they are so smart why are they not teaching their own class? Still this says nothing of science, but is more a tale of your propensity to annoy your instructors with your religious protests or questions.

was in attacking patriotism, which was running rather high at the time. He was so far gone that about 95% of his classes complained so loudly he was fired (and the subsequent switch into soft sciences occured). With the political climate having shifted in the opposite direction of late, the class wouldn’t have complained so loudly about his anti-patriotism and he would still be focusing on atheism were he there today.

Patriotism is just a form of delusion, and a means to enforce a strict conformity. I too was sickened by the “patriotic” displays after 9/11. The american flag stickers on big SUV’s that were guzzling gas and only stressing the situation. And all of the mindless banter about evil muslims. It is one thing to be angry and go to war, but another thing completely, to blind yourself in the process. Patriotism is the number one tool of facists, in the name of country any unspeakable thing can be forgiven. I am not saying you shouldn’t cheer for the hometeam, but you do not have to pretend like the team or it’s management are perfect…that is why people founded America, so they COULD complain when the government was wrong.

buffalo:

evolution is atheistic.

Ah still no proof…oh except that it is covered in other threads…well my mind is at ease now thanks

When scientists and profs make claims that evolution proves God does not exist, it is a religious belief in itself

Relevance? That is scientist speculating on evolution…(granted they do make some bold claims) Does this mean anyone speculating about religion speaks for all religion? If so you guys are in trouble cause I got a twisted little mind sometimes

A presumption of evolution defenders is that God is not required and the proofs go on from there made to fit.

Not true. That is just YOUR presumption. In fact, in another thread I explained how both evolution and creation were possible simultaneously without contradicting each other.

Still you never adressed my issue of if it is still considered "atheist for people that had no creation story in their religion, therefore presented no contradictions with their notions of God.

 

[Wormwood]

Science sticking to the realm of science and not stepping beyond into phiosophy, etc is the ideal.

However, it is not the practice in many places where a science teacher sees an opportunity to use his platform to criticize faith.

Ok yes we do agree …wow. Just as your priest can not explain to you the nature of splitting an atom or relativity, your science proffessor is in no way able to offer evidence either for or against God, if they could they would be too rich to teach at your school.

To her, the two are linked, synonymous. She is a devout atheist BECAUSE she believes in science

That is not true. If she truly believed in science, she would be agnostic like me, as there is no evidence for or against the existance of God in any repeatable way. If she is atheist, then she believes in science BECAUSE she is atheist, and not the other way around. Her natural skepticism and belief in only what she herself can experience make science a very alluring prospect for putting some sort of reason to it all.

So can we agree that if a science teacher makes such conclusions about faith or God or what-have-you that it has no place in a science classroom?

Agreed…pass a law…i would vote for it TODAY. I went to catholic school, so we learned divinely inspired evolution or whatever, but we only focused on the physical phenomenon that formed our solar system, not the driving forces behind the physics, just the physics. HOW gravity caused the dense heavy metals to form the first and smallest of our planets etc. not why.

 

[Forest-Pine]

Wormwood:

What does the character and personality of your professor have to do with the scientific community as a whole? This is a weak and even unverifiable defense to your claim. You have no instances in which the scientific community classifies atheistic philosophy or religion as science.

No, it is precisely what you asked for. The argument is that on a practical level, it is common for classrooms to teach atheism. You asked for three examples. I gave three that pertain to me directly as I have personally felt these effects and need not call on someone else’s experiences. I suppose if we were to get in touch with the professor, he would be happy to support his position, so not unverifiable, either. Nonetheless, you now shift the focus to a national campaign or some such to distact from the real-life concerns I have.

You are starting to paint a more clear picture of what was probably going on. You were not there to teach, but to “regurgitate” as you say.

I was not there to teach, but to LEARN. He had no desire of anything but regurgitation of what HE said. He said we must believe in atheism. The majority of students found themselves required to make personal theological statements against their personal beliefs in order to get a good grade. I argued with him on paper instead, and I tried to pick my battles wisely. See below for how that went over with him.

It is very disruptive when some person raises their hand with a disputing comment every 2 minutes…if they are so smart why are they not teaching their own class?

That was quite an assumption on your part. I saw through his ploys quite easily and did not bother with interrupting him every 2 minutes. I got an A. A Muslim man in the class was highly offended, as were a couple evengelicals, who did argue with him regularly. This would not have been a problem if he was not teaching outside his subject area.

Still this says nothing of science, but is more a tale of your propensity to annoy your instructors with your religious protests or questions.

Again, your assumption. And nice that my teacher did something even you say is wrong, so you automatically blame it on me. I can discuss it here as it is a forum just for that. I shouldn’t have my faith attacked at a personal level in a classroom, and neither should any one else. However, my instructor was only annoyed by one thing: religion. Why? Because he was teaching atheism, and not his subject. But, you were wrong that I was the one “annoying” him. As a matter of fact, as much as I dispised that class, I spoke to the professor the other day. He recommended me for an award many years after I took his class. I called to thank him. Apparently, despite my refusing to argue Truth in a cultural anthropology class, he ranks me as one of his best students. Your argument is a straw-man and personal attack to divert attention from the errant actions of the teacher.

Patriotism is just a form of delusion, and a means to enforce a strict conformity. I too was sickened by the “patriotic” displays after 9/11. The american flag stickers on big SUV’s that were guzzling gas and only stressing the situation.

Ha ha ha! Somewhere we can totally agree! I love my Prius and look forward to even more feasible means of lowering our gas consumption. Don’t you hate it when someone’s actions don’t match their words?

And all of the mindless banter about evil muslims. It is one thing to be angry and go to war, but another thing completely, to blind yourself in the process. Patriotism is the number one tool of facists, in the name of country any unspeakable thing can be forgiven. I am not saying you shouldn’t cheer for the hometeam, but you do not have to pretend like the team or it’s management are perfect…that is why people founded America, so they COULD complain when the government was wrong.

Totally off topic, but interesting. I’d love to participate in a thread on what the founding father’s intentions were, as I believe it was clear that they did not trust the masses, wanted to only have the appearance of “the people” participating, and did not want total freedom, but just freedom from the Queen and her religion. If you start it, let me know.

 

[Bobby_A.Greene]

As a good Catholic I hope it spells the end of Darwinism and not necessarily evolution.

 

[Wormwood]

**

No, it is precisely what you asked for

What we were talking about was science passing off atheistic philosophy or religion as scientific fact, and what you provided were examples of a person using science as his explaination for atheism. The two are not the same I assure you. That would be like me saying, “well some catholics burned heretics, so it is a part of catholicism to burn heretics.” That is flawed logic.

**

Nonetheless, you now shift the focus to a national campaign or some such to distact from the real-life concerns I have.

**

Oh don’t be that way…I am more than happy to address any concerns you may have, I just won’t neccessarily accept them as proof for this particular argument.

**

I was not there to teach, but to LEARN. He had no desire of anything but regurgitation of what HE said.

**
Well it was science not philosophy. Does your view matter in math? No, you write that 2+2=4 because that is what you were taught. It has repeatable and testable results, no opinions needed.

**

He said we must believe in atheism.

** Did you have to sign an atheist pledge statement, or was it more like an answer on the test? hmmm I pick “B” atheism is the one true religion…that sort of thing?

**

That was quite an assumption on your part. I saw through his ploys quite easily and did not bother with interrupting him every 2 minutes.

**
I didn’t say that you did that, just offering possible explainations to get a clearer picture.

**

Again, your assumption. And nice that my teacher did something even you say is wrong, so you automatically blame it on me.

**
Not at all. I just meant that the picture you were painting was one more of squabbling with a proffessor or two over religion and not science being atheistic by virtue. How did your religion even come up in science class?

**

** However, my instructor was only annoyed by one thing: religion. Why?**

**
Well I am not even religious but I see a similarity to Satan. How a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and sometimes you can get so smart, that it makes you stupid. His skepticism mixed with his own sense of great intellect leads him to the conclusion that he alone is truly right, and anyone who believes differently is to be pitied or conditioned away from those foolish habits.

**

Ha ha ha! Somewhere we can totally agree! I love my Prius and look forward to even more feasible means of lowering our gas consumption. Don’t you hate it when someone’s actions don’t match their words?

**

Hate it, love it; tis why I’m here.

**

Totally off topic, but interesting.

**
Eh, thanks. I kinda got off on a tangent.**

 

[Steve_Andersen]

dts:

….At a recent scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists an unexpected question: “Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?”

  It is interesting that they even felt compelled to ask the question or that it was covered in a national publication

 Do you think anyone would go to a theological seminar and ask “Can you be a good Christian and believe in double blind studies and peer review?”

Would it be reported if they did?

what does this say about the assumptions and biases of our soceity?

Is science on the defensive its proper bounds?

dts:

Reaction from one of the panelists, all Nobel laureates, was quick and sharp. “No!”

  Reaction of one of the panelist…..one

 Since the subject was probably posted in advance a panel such as this is probably self selecting

     Once again, along with Forest-Pine’s comments on his school experiences indicating that, while they may be interesting, anecdotes aren’t a good form of argument for making a broad generalizations

dts:

……… Their belief in God challenges scientists who regard religious belief as little more than magical thinking, as some do. Their faith also challenges believers who denounce science as a godless enterprise and scientists as secular elitists contemptuous of God-fearing people……

    Once again what does the position of individuals have to do with the subject itself?

     The original post was asking if science was stepping over “proper” bounds of science.   How does this support that claim?

  By proper bounds are you suggesting that there are questions that shouldn’t be asked?  Are there findings that shouldn’t be reported?

 

[dts]

Wormwood:

There are so many faults with this view I don’t know where to begin. What is your definition for “practical” atheism? Also, what god would you teach created the universe? Indra? Yahweh? bel? Anu? The great eagle? There are a lot of interpretations of the term “god”. After you narrow that down (by of course suggesting the god of christianity, more specifically catholicism) So do you teach that god created the world in 6 days? That conflicts with other religions accounts, as well as modern science. And there is an endless list…where does it stop? Couldn’t every answer on their science test just be “because god made it that way”? This is a very ethnocentric view and it really has no place in a public educational system. If the parents can’t afford catholic school, they can get their priest to answer how god fits into what they learned at school, on their own time. Education should be founded on accurate data, not hopeful misinformation and guilded truths.

I did assume Christian presuppositions, since I was under the impression that most of the previous posters were Christians. To say that God is irrelevant to a subject is something that should be unthinkable to Christians. You assume that religious neutrality is possible in education or in a particular educational subject. I deny that. For God is behind all knowledge and the source of unity for all knowledge.

When we say that 2+2=4 we are assuming certain things about the nature of knowledge, orderliness, the laws of nature etc. . . This then ultimately leads us to the question of the ultimate cause. Inescapably these questions culminate in philosophical and religious issues.

Part of the problem with public education, in its current manifestation, is that it assumes we can stop educating at the point where these issues are implicated. If you are agnostic I would not necessarily expect you to accept these presuppositions. By definition, you assume God can’t be known. Therefore, He would be irrelevant to most subjects in your view.

Wormwood:

First of all, no one said you have to tell them ANYTHING about God, actually the opposite is kind of the point. I can’t think of one time in my microbiology or neuroanatomy classes where God would have any bearing on the facts. Even in the most basic physics, which is really what we are talking about, God just simply isn’t a factor. By that I mean that whatever the cause, a series of observable and testable phenomenon occured and THAT is what the class is oriented around. You can not deny that our solar system did indeed form, because we can observe and test those results. So the material stays centered more around the physical processes, hence the name physics. What motivated those forces to act is more the subject for metaphysics or philosophy.

I made this point several times in earlier posts. Even the very logic and methods used in science class assumes certain things about knowledge and reality. These assumptions may be unspoken in a particular class or set of classes, but they are there.

Wormwood:

Often huh? Name three instances.

Impossible. The three diciplines can not overlap. A proof in philosophy or religion hardly counts as “scientific” proof. In the same way, you could never use logic or data to prove that god does not exist. You can’t even PROOVE that santa doesn’t exist

You are arguing as to how these disciplines should be categorized. There is overlap in the disciplines. Science is dependent on logic, the nature of knowledge etc. . . See my earlier posts. Often, it is not made clear where the scientific proofs end and the faith begins.

You ask for examples. See, some of Phillip Johnson’s books. See recent news articles. See the testimony of folks on this thread. Do you think Cardinal Schonborn was just imagining that there is a problem in his recent NY Times article?

 

[dts]

Steve Andersen:

It is interesting that they even felt compelled to ask the question or that it was covered in a national publication

 Do you think anyone would go to a theological seminar and ask “Can you be a good Christian and believe in double blind studies and peer review?”

Would it be reported if they did?

what does this say about the assumptions and biases of our soceity?

Is science on the defensive its proper bounds?

  Reaction of one of the panelist…..one

 Since the subject was probably posted in advance a panel such as this is probably self selecting

     Once again, along with Forest-Pine’s comments on his school experiences indicating that, while they may be interesting, anecdotes aren’t a good form of argument for making a broad generalizations

    Once again what does the position of individuals have to do with the subject itself?

     The original post was asking if science was stepping over “proper” bounds of science.   How does this support that claim?

  By proper bounds are you suggesting that there are questions that shouldn’t be asked?  Are there findings that shouldn’t be reported?

Science doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It is practiced by human beings who are using and promoting it. The question about its proper limits is certainly something that should be discussed in scientific and other circles.

The recent news story about the Smithsonian employee and the effort to demonize him is just one more example suggesting that there is something seriously wrong in the scientific community. Some of the recent surveys in recent news reports seem to provide further evidence of this. Some leaders in the Catholic Church are alarmed by what they see. Are we to just suppose that these are all just a bunch of paranoid religious kooks? Is that reasonable?

The original question was:

“Is this debate really about atheists (or materialists) overstepping the proper bounds of science?”

 

[mkellogg]

hecd2:

Really? So, Einstein’s General theory of relativity, Faraday’s and Maxwell’s 19th century theory of the unification of electricity and magnetism, the modern synthesis of Dobzhansky, Haldane, Mayr, Simpson and Wright, the discoveries of Crick, Watson and Franklin, the Copenhagenn interpretation, the understanding of the deep meaning of Bell’s inequality, should all be rejected because the general public hasn’t got the slightest notion about what any of these fundamentally important theories say. Bah!

I see - so your poistion is now clear. Although you are a scientific ignoramus you have a ‘problem’ with macro-evolution on the grounds of ‘reason and common sense’ which are clearly lacking in professional scientists. You wouldn’t care to elaborate would you? No. of course not, Silly me.

Alec begins, as he did with so many other posts, by losing his mind with rage and tossing out all kinds of insults. I find this to be the typical atheist/scientist response to the suggestion by a theist that Darwinism is nonsense. Note that he’s not arguing any of the merits; just lobbing insults and name-calling.

hecd2:

It’s not fairly undeniable. It’s not undeniable at all. It’s eminently deniable. Evolution is, in fact, not in trouble at all, as you would know if you read any primary scientific journal.

I’ve read responses to arguments against Darwinism, Alec, and besides making my head hurt, they proved little more than that scientists make poor apologists. They argue about minutiae and they tend to dance around the primary objection, raising all kinds of other side issues. The biggest mistake they ALL make is that they utterly refuse to consider theism as a possible causal factor. They approach questions like macro-evolution with their minds already made up on that subject. That’s just wrong.

I’m sorry that for some Americans it seems galling, but it’s a fact: the opinions of the American public matter not the slightest in determining what is and what is not good science. That is determined by scientific considerations amongst the world scientific community. Sorry to disappoint, but popular polls are irrelevant.

If you believe that, then you are a fool. Money for scientific research comes from the American public. Science is meaningless if it can’t help laypeople understand the world better. Why do you feel compelled to be so condescending? You come across with this stereotypical, “Get away from me, kid, you bother me,” attitude, as though no one else could possibly understand what YOU understand. Where did you get this bizarre idea that you’re in any way smarter than the rest of us?

I’ve read several of your posts, Alec, and I have yet to find one refutation from you about anything raised by Intelligent Design theorists. Actually, this is fairly typical from the atheist crowd. They consider ID theorists to not even be scientific in their approach (which is ridiculous) or worthy of anything more than an insult or two.

 

[Wormwood]

dts:

I did assume Christian presuppositions, since I was under the impression that most of the previous posters were Christians

Well that is the problem I was trying to point out. Sure the posters on a religious site who come here of free will are majority christian. But we are talking about public schools. You can’t teach that without telling someone that their religion is wrong. Then you would have to decide which religion is right…I am sure you think catholicism, but look at the number of catholic presidents, I doubt it would be catholic in the public opinion. Even if you forced non christian children to learn a christian view, would you have them learn literal or allagorical reading? There are too many problems, grey areas, and speculations with no proof to teach this in a public school with public money. A hindu families taxes count just as much as yours.

You assume that religious neutrality is possible in education or in a particular educational subject. I deny that. For God is behind all knowledge and the source of unity for all knowledge.

That is just a baseless assumption on your part, as you can provide no proof for that statement. And again the question of WHOSE God arises.

When we say that 2+2=4 we are assuming certain things about the nature of knowledge, orderliness, the laws of nature etc. . . This then ultimately leads us to the question of the ultimate cause

We are assuming that the answer is four only because it can be demonstrated to be true in countless tests, with repeatable results. The proof is all the reason you need, there is no question of why. You could file your taxes without speculating “why” 2+2=4 right?

Part of the problem with public education, in its current manifestation, is that it assumes we can stop educating at the point where these issues are implicated

Well probably because that is true. Like I said, you don’t have to learn “why” the earth formed to understand that it did indeed form, and how it formed.

I made this point several times in earlier posts. Even the very logic and methods used in science class assumes certain things about knowledge and reality

They assume that only something that can demonstrate repeatable proof, is true, because it is proven to be true. I don’t really see what sort of slant you are trying to put on this.

These assumptions may be unspoken in a particular class or set of classes, but they are there.

Maybe for you. Sounds like you are just making defensive assumptions. If something is not stated in science class, doesn’t mean that science class must be in opposition.

There is overlap in the disciplines. Science is dependent on logic, the nature of knowledge etc. . . See my earlier posts

Are you saying that philosophical proof CAN be taken as scientific proof? If on the otherhand you are saying that “logic” has a certain amount of subjectivity, I can only say this in hopes of explaining: the periodic table, right or wrong, is accepted as the way things are…it is a logical assumtion that can be built upon by numerous branches of science…resulting in synthetic elements, understanding molecular bonds and even splitting the atom. If however I were using philosophy I would say this: All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, therefore all matter is made of the same thing. Therefore all matter is compatable with all other matter because they are the same thing. Philosophically this is true, but if I were to use that to mix acids and bases, or to try to create synthetic fibers, I would be very out of luck.

 

[dts]

Wormwood,

With regard to public schools, you are right. The question of “whose religion” raises problems in a society that believes neutrality is possible.

Nevertheless, denial of the relevance of religious truth to various subjects is not a neutral solution even though the Federal courts would have us believe otherwise. In fact, such denial is a secular solution. Secular does not equal neutral. It is just a different faith and philosophy about the nature of reality. It assumes God can be eliminated from certain aspects of reality depending on our categorization of the subject.

Perhaps, the only solution to this is school choice. Personally, I favor an agressive tax credit solution for both individuals and corporations. Unfortunately, secularists have the power right now and most are fighting hard to keep it by opposing school choice.

My assumption that God is behind all knowledge and the source of unity for all knowledge is not baseless. It flows from a Christian worldview. In a discussion with fellow Christians, it is a perfectly justified assumption. Of course, an agnostic would have to say the assumption is “baseless”, because by definition agnostics believe God cannot be known. Therefore, God is irrelevant to most subjects. Depending on your variety of agnosticism, you may also believe we cannot know anything.

There are many different kinds of proofs that support the Christian faith. Whether you accept them or not is another matter suitable for a different thread. You overstate your case when you say the assumption is baseless.

Regarding the 2+2=4 example, the question of “why” is always lurking in the background. It is possible to evade the question to some extent.
But doing so, arbitrarily confines the educational process and short circuits the quest for knowledge.

I am not saying that scientific proofs and philosophical proofs are of the same nature. I am saying that as a practical matter, the distinction between the two can easily be blurred. I am also saying that there is mutual dependence between science and philosophy.

 

[Wormwood]

With regard to public schools, you are right. The question of “whose religion” raises problems in a society that believes neutrality is possible.

This issue alone makes what you are suggesting impossible.

Nevertheless, denial of the relevance of religious truth to various subjects is not a neutral solution even though the Federal courts would have us believe otherwise. In fact, such denial is a secular solution.

Religion is a choice, school is not. Therefore school is a very secular issue. Even if only 2-3% of the population didn’t believe in God, that is a large enough number to ban your proposition. Also I don’t see what could be more nuetral than abstaining to talk about something? If they said that God does not exist as part of class then THAT would be taking the opposite stance…not bringing it up is nuetrality.

It is just a different faith and philosophy about the nature of reality

That is just it, faith and philosophy have no place in a science classroom. I don’t want the engineer building my airplane to do so on faith, I want him to build it with an engineering degree based on science.

Perhaps, the only solution to this is school choice. Personally, I favor an agressive tax credit solution for both individuals and corporations. Unfortunately, secularists have the power right now

Ahh so you don’t live in the U.S. then…where are you from? In the U.S. we live under the grip of the extreme religious right…so I can’t really relate to this one.

My assumption that God is behind all knowledge and the source of unity for all knowledge is not baseless. It flows from a Christian worldview. In a discussion with fellow Christians, it is a perfectly justified assumption.

It is so baseless. Not only that, but when are you going to understand that this argument is worthless for this discussion? In a discussion with christians it makes sense…oh well it MUST be true then… So what about the non christian population? They don’t count? Ok so what happens if more and more muslims move to this country until the state enforced school religion is Islam, …would you still be ok with teaching religion as fact in schools and or government?

There are many different kinds of proofs that support the Christian faith. Whether you accept them or not is another matter suitable for a different thread.

If I can choose not to accept them, then they are not proofs.Proof is undeniable…it is by definition…proof. And again, I am sure every religion has the same amount of “proof”.

Regarding the 2+2=4 example, the question of “why” is always lurking in the background

This is proposterous. Who gets caught up in the “why’s” of 2+2=4? If you know that 2+2=4 then you already know why…there is no philosophical anything here no matter how much you want there to be.

I am not saying that scientific proofs and philosophical proofs are of the same nature. I am saying that as a practical matter, the distinction between the two can easily be blurred.

The blurring occurs when you try to mix the two improperly. There is a very clear distinction between science and philosophy. I am guessing you are not much of a science person.

I am also saying that there is mutual dependence between science and philosophy

I completely and fully disagree. I say there should be a restraining order and philosophy should not be allowed to come within 500ft of science at anytime. Philosophy is dependant on nothing, but logic and the ability to think. Science is based on observable, demonstratable, and repeatable results which can be further applied to future experiments with predictable results. See not symbiotic at all.

 

[dts]

Wormwood:

This issue alone makes what you are suggesting impossible.

Impossible in the current legal/political climate. But as history demonstrates that can change like the wind. It is changing. We already have a very significant percentage of the population in Arizona in some form of alternative to public education. Individual tax credits are in place. Corporate tax credits were just vetoed, but they will be back and the Dem governor has agreed to sign if a few conditions are met.

Wormwood:

Religion is a choice, school is not. Therefore school is a very secular issue. Even if only 2-3% of the population didn’t believe in God, that is a large enough number to ban your proposition. Also I don’t see what could be more nuetral than abstaining to talk about something? If they said that God does not exist as part of class then THAT would be taking the opposite stance…not bringing it up is nuetrality.

So the fact, the government passes a law about something automatically makes it a “secular” issue???

It seems you assume that if we ignore God or simply take him out of the equation that is “neutral.” I disagree. However, I do agree it is possible to just not say anything about Him. But, that raises questions of educational propiety and artificiality depending on overall context.

Wormwood:

That is just it, faith and philosophy have no place in a science classroom. I don’t want the engineer building my airplane to do so on faith, I want him to build it with an engineering degree based on science.

Yes. And hopefully, he believes that certain laws of nature are fixed, uniform, and universal.

Wormwood:

Ahh so you don’t live in the U.S. then…where are you from? In the U.S. we live under the grip of the extreme religious right…so I can’t really relate to this one.

I have never met anyone who seriously believes the NEA is controlled by the “religious right.” As for the Education Department, Bush does have control over it theoretically. However, as a practical matter, it is a large bureaucracy whose life extends beyond any particular administration.

Wormwood:

It is so baseless. Not only that, but when are you going to understand that this argument is worthless for this discussion? In a discussion with christians it makes sense…oh well it MUST be true then… So what about the non christian population? They don’t count? Ok so what happens if more and more muslims move to this country until the state enforced school religion is Islam, …would you still be ok with teaching religion as fact in schools and or government?

You are confusing two different questions. It is very appropriate for Christians to communicate with each other using common presuppositions to formulate policy. How those policy propositions are then communicated to the general public which may not accept Christian presuppositions per se is an entirely different issue.

Wormwood:

If I can choose not to accept them, then they are not proofs.Proof is undeniable…it is by definition…proof. And again, I am sure every religion has the same amount of “proof”.

Your view of proof is very simplistic. In many instances, the issue is not so clear cut. Even in science, there are often so many variables and assumptions involved that it may be difficult to determine whether or not something has been “proved” as absolutely true. Today’s apparent scientific truth may be shown to be wrong tomorrow.

Wormwood:

This is proposterous. Who gets caught up in the “why’s” of 2+2=4? If you know that 2+2=4 then you already know why…there is no philosophical anything here no matter how much you want there to be.

It is merely an example to demonstrate that even this simple question relies on certain presuppositions about the nature of reality.

Wormwood:

The blurring occurs when you try to mix the two improperly. There is a very clear distinction between science and philosophy. I am guessing you are not much of a science person.

I have already stipulated that there is a very clear distinction between scientific and philosophical method. I don’t need to be much of a science person to know that. The problem is a clear distinction is not always made between the two.

Wormwood:

I completely and fully disagree. I say there should be a restraining order and philosophy should not be allowed to come within 500ft of science at anytime. Philosophy is dependant on nothing, but logic and the ability to think. Science is based on observable, demonstratable, and repeatable results which can be further applied to future experiments with predictable results. See not symbiotic at all.

Even empiricism rests on certain philosophical presuppositions.

 

[The_Barbarian]

For example, a November 2004 Gallup poll reported that 83 percent of Americans believe that God was involved in human origin and development. Only 13 percent believed that God had no part in the process. Remarkable, considering that Darwinian evolution has been a theory without rival in public education ever since the Scopes Trial.

Interestingly, most people thought that evolution was true, with the majority of those saying God had a part in it. Only a minority said evolution was not true.

38% thought evolution of humans happened with God’s involvement

13% thought evolution of humans happened without God’s involvement

45% thought humans didn’t evolve.

The rest had no opinion.

These numbers made academians wonder how the public could fail to “get it.”

There’s been a slow increase in the number of people who know about evolution. Americans are getting it slowly, but they are getting it. In 2005, the Gallup poll showed the first absolute majority for evolution. It’s not just scientists who are catching on.

What’s wrong is that Darwinism lacks the creative power to explain the full complexity and diversity of life. And a growing number of scientists agree

Wrong on both counts. Each generation of scientists has feweer and fewer creationists. Here’s a good way to check that idea:

Project Steve:
ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

**NCSE’s “Project Steve” is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of “scientists who doubt evolution” or “scientists who dissent from Darwinism.” (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)

Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a “theory in crisis.”…Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because “Steves” are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. **

There are about 550 “Steves” signed up at this time, people whose name is “Steve” or some variant, and who have a PhD in biology or a related field. Next time you see one of those “lots of scientists doubt science” lists, toss out all of the ones without applicable degrees, and the non-steves, and see what you have left.

Since more than 70 percent of the populace favor “teaching the controversy,” it was only a matter of time before states began amending science curricula

Not until the Bill of Rights is repealed. Our religious freedoms are not up for a vote.

But it’s not a problem. If creationism worked, scientists would use it no matter who objected.

But it doesn’t work. And if it doesn’t work, what good is it?

"Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution."
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in the July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution

 

[mkellogg]

Wormwood:

That is just it, faith and philosophy have no place in a science classroom. I don’t want the engineer building my airplane to do so on faith, I want him to build it with an engineering degree based on science.

No one disagrees with this, least of all ID proponents.

Ahh so you don’t live in the U.S. then…where are you from? In the U.S. we live under the grip of the extreme religious right…so I can’t really relate to this one.

This statement is utterly preposterous all by itself.

If I can choose not to accept them, then they are not proofs.Proof is undeniable…it is by definition…proof. And again, I am sure every religion has the same amount of “proof”.

So what, again, was the PROOF that man evolved through all these other types of animals? Eh?

The blurring occurs when you try to mix the two improperly. There is a very clear distinction between science and philosophy. I am guessing you are not much of a science person.

Again with the condescending attitudes. This is SO typical…

I completely and fully disagree. I say there should be a restraining order and philosophy should not be allowed to come within 500ft of science at anytime. Philosophy is dependant on nothing, but logic and the ability to think. Science is based on observable, demonstratable, and repeatable results which can be further applied to future experiments with predictable results. See not symbiotic at all.

News flash: Darwinism has never been proven. Scientists accept it and its atheistic implications on faith. And this after nearly two centuries of trying to prove it. Enough already. Next theory.

ID says that scientists should not rule out supernatural causal factors as a consideration for the origin of life (and the universe). If you are willing to accept this possibility, then there is just as much “evidence” for ID as there is for Darwinism. More, probably. Atheist scientists refuse to consider this possibility, and so they write the whole thing off as “non-science”. That is ridiculous.

 

[Montalban]

“Long ago (in the 4th century!) one of the Church’s teachers Vasilius the Great wrote about this. He advised the Orthodox Christians neither to rely upon the scientific data in order to provide foundation for their faith in Christ, nor to try to disprove them, because “the scientists permanently disprove themselves.”

pravoslavie.ru/english/age-of-earth.htm

“It is not perhaps without good reason that we attribute to simple-mindedness a readiness to believe anything and to ignorance the readiness to be convinced, for I think I was once taught that a belief is like an impression stamped on our soul: the softer and less resisting the soul, the easier it is to print anything on it…On the other hand there is a silly arrogance in continuing to disdain something and to condemn it as false just because it seems unlikely to us. That is a common vice among those who think their capacities are above the ordinary”.

“That it is madness to judge the true and the false from our own capacities”, Michel de Montaigne (1993), “The Essays: A Selection”, Penguin Classics, p74.

 

[Wormwood]

mkellogg:

No one disagrees with this, least of all ID proponents.

Well dts was disagreeing. He was saying it was impossible to remove them…reread the posts.

This statement is utterly preposterous all by itself.

That is probably the matter for another thread.

So what, again, was the PROOF that man evolved through all these other types of animals? Eh?

I don’t know…read my definition of proof again then you tell me.

Again with the condescending attitudes. This is SO typical…

Typical of what? Gross over generalizations are also condescending you know.

News flash: Darwinism has never been proven. Scientists accept it and its atheistic implications on faith

What atheistic implications? If I taught about how a plant works without bringing up God, that does not mean I am teaching an atheistic botany class. Also scientists are not notorious for their “faith” ok? They except evolution because there is a lot of evidence to support that theory. Christian scientists didn’t believe in even micro evolution at first, but have had to grudginly except. This made them question macro, which led to the ID argument. And that is fine if you want to factor God into everything, there is nothing stating that God couldn’t have caused the big bang, but I don’t see how God could ever factor into a scientific formula, or physics problem. Truly there is no need for this in schools, if someone wants their child to have the God driven view then that should be taught at home or church.

ID says that scientists should not rule out supernatural causal factors as a consideration for the origin of life (and the universe). If you are willing to accept this possibility, then there is just as much “evidence” for ID as there is for Darwinism. More, probably

I doubt it. I am sure your evidence consists of biblical scripture from your own bible, and I can’t even begin to explain how many different reasons there are that doesn’t work. It would be like me quoting Darwin to prove Darwin. I have only seen one convincing peice of creationist evidence…and that extends only to human beings.