Evolution and Creation: What to Teach Students?

[The_Barbarian]

What I understand is that teaching creationism is condemned because God cannot be proven in the lab

Even it creationism were true, it couldn’t be proven in the lab. Religion is not, and cannot be part of science.

yet the same people are telling me that science does not prove anything in the lab either.

Right. Science is primarily inductive, making inferences from evidence. It doesn’t give you logical certainty. But it can give you enough evidence to make disagreement perverse.

However, any ridiculous idea that someone labels science can be taught.

No, ID can’t be taught, because it is a religion. Even if someone labels it science, it’s still a religion.

That is hypocrisy.

That’s the truth. The truth matters.

The fact that Lamarkianism was eventually rejected is irrelevant; at one time scientists held to it with just as much fervor as they do with evolution today.

Or as little fervor. That’s why, when the evidence showed it to be wrong, it was left behind. That’s why, when some aspects of Darwin’s theory were shown to be wrong, or incomplete, they were dropped and replaced by more accurate ones. If those were supported by “fervor”, that would not have happened, um?

I believe that the theory of evolution is on the way out.

People have been saying that for 150 years. The various religions and philosophies they were pushing are mostly gone now. But evolutionary theory is stronger than ever.

New discoveries in biochemistry are showing the absurdity inherent in the theory.

Sounds like a testable claim. Let’s take a look and see.

As far as the formation of Alps is concerned, geology is not my strongpoint but the same principle applies, why should your unprovable views be taught but not mine?

Evidence. That’s all. That’s all that’s needed.

 

[Namesake]

Evolution is not compatible with the Bible. Evolution is a naturalistic explanation for life on Earth, nothing more. It is not science.

Science gives us the ability to land a man on the moon. Science enables us to build aircraft that can fly for the US to Europe. Sicence is based on observable truth. Evolution is a speculation to explain a belief system: that life came about naturally. That is NOT science.

I am tired of hearing that evolution is compatable with the Catholic Church. Today, the leadership of the Catholic Church seems more interested in being politically correct than theologically accurate. I see belief in evolution is symptomatic of a loss of faith. Evoultion came out of the worldview of the Enlightment. This worldview (Modernism) was condemned by Popes a century ago.

Evolution theory is incredibly strong scientifically. You may choose to refute that, but you cannot succeed. The science is overwhelmingly strong. That is the reality with which we live.

 

[buffalo]

Evolution theory is incredibly strong scientifically. You may choose to refute that, but you cannot succeed. The science is overwhelmingly strong. That is the reality with which we live.

Indeed it is. And looking at it from the secular wordlview more convincing yet.

Faith and reason cannot be opposed for they flow from the same God. Science is a subset of reason in that the raw data must be reasoned. In the absence of God it is likely to produce Godless reasoning. Only then will we correctly reason since He is complete truth.

We need to keep God in the equation.

 

[The_Barbarian]

We need to keep God in the equation.

Can’t. He won’t fit. God cannot be squeezed down to fit science.

 

[edwest2]

Pope John Paul II has described the proper relationship between religion and science:

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

Too many make science an idol. It becomes a secular way, truth and light, distracting people from the true Light of the World.

It is important for Christians to realize that if truth cannot contradict truth, it must work in both directions. Whatever truth science uncovers must be in agreement with divinely revealed truth. This is the heart of the issue and a reasonable concern for believers. The Church is constantly analyzing science and interpreting it in light of divine revelation. In the end, it is the Church that combines all reason to give the faithful the correct answer about any scientific issue that concerns human dignity, human origin, life, death and human interaction.

God bless,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

We should not make an idol of science; it’s just a method for finding out how nature works. Nothing more. But it works really well for that limited purpose.

We shouldn’t make an idol of creationism, either. It’s the cause of many people losing their faith, because they assumed that if creationism was wrong, Christianity must be wrong, too.

A much more dangerous idol, it is.

 

[garysibio]

Gary, if we are going to teach alternatives to the evolutionary story, we need to teach the Mayan myth in the Popol Vuh, and the Earth Diver myth from the Cherokee, as well as the Hebrew myth in Genesis 1-3.

Because this discussion is how to handle the situation in a Catholic school.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Again, if you can’t teach creationism because you can’t prove God in a laboratory, then, if you can’t prove evolution in a laboratory, it is hypocrisy to teach it. Dance all you want but you can’t get around that.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

Sure there is, and it’s this: Evolution is an empirically-based scientific conclusion, while “six-day creation” is a revelation-based theological conviction. The reason to teach evolution in the science classroom is that it qualifies as “science,” whereas creationism does not. (Now, that doesn’t mean that the doctrine of creation isn’t true, only that it isn’t science.)

Don,

You can repeat this all you want but it is still nonsense. Just because someone labels one view as “science” and the other as “religion” doesn’t mean a thing.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

And, I assume you are also referring to having a reliable eyewitness. Just any old eyewitness may not do. But, then, how do you determine the reliability of the eyewitness? Another eyewitness, perhaps? Is it " …eyewitnesses all the way down"? Not to mention that eyewitness testimony isn’t necessarily all that it’s cracked up to be; see, for example writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html

You are right. I did use the phrase “reliable witness” in another post. I just left it out here. I could also add “Who is more reliable a witness than God?”

Gary

 

[garysibio]

“Evolution” is the testable biological theory that all life is related through “descent with modification.” It is as well substantiated as the theory of atoms or gravity or plate tectonics. Evolution, properly interpreted, makes no claims about God’s existence or non-existence. Evolution is compatible with theism, atheism, and agnosticism.

Evolution says that the all life is the result of random mutations acted upon by natural selection. The theory has no use for God. Adding God to evolution is like slapping a coat of paint on a Yugo and calling it a Rolls Royce.

How does one test to determine whether an event has occurred or not? You can’t. Therefore evolution is not testable.

Gary

 

[drpmjhess]

No, only provable theories should be taught, such as alpine glaciation carving U-shaped valleys.

 

[drpmjhess]

Because this discussion is how to handle the situation in a Catholic school.Gary

My sons go to a wonderful Catholic school. The science teacher for the upper grades also happens to teach religion to my sixth grader. She teaches evolutionary biology in science class, and Catholic theology in religion class. I am invited in (as a theologian and seminary and college professor) to talk with the students about the relationship between religion and science. They love reading the Genesis creation myth along with the Mayan Popol Vuh and the Cherokee Earth Diver myth, and drawing out the truths from these and other stories.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Evolution says that the all life is the result of random mutations acted upon by natural selection. The theory has no use for God. Gary

Physics and geology have no use for God. Should we abaddon gravity and plate tectonics along with evolution, in favor of magic and superstition?

 

[drpmjhess]

Physics and geology have no use for God. Should we abaddon gravity and plate tectonics along with evolution, in favor of magic and superstition?

That is, “abandon”

 

[drpmjhess]

Don,You can repeat this all you want but it is still nonsense. Just because someone labels one view as “science” and the other as “religion” doesn’t mean a thing.
Gary

Gary, do you understand how science works? Have you ever visited a laboratory? Have you ever spoken with a real, live geneticist, or a plant pathologist, or a paleontologist? Have you asked how these scientists understand science?

 

[garysibio]

Physics and geology have no use for God. Should we abaddon gravity and plate tectonics along with evolution, in favor of magic and superstition?

Gravity and plate tectonics are measurable. No one has ever seen one life form change into another. Do you see the difference?

Gary

 

[drpmjhess]

It is important for Christians to realize that if truth cannot contradict truth, it must work in both directions. Whatever truth science uncovers must be in agreement with divinely revealed truth.God bless,Ed

Indeed, Ed – this is quite true, and hardly controversial. Saint Albert the Great recognized the unitas scientiarum even while being careful to distinguish between theology and natural philosophy. His account of the cause of earthquakes followed Aristotle’s naturalistic (godless) reasoning, a move that complemented rather than contradicted his theology.

Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

Gravity and plate tectonics are measurable. No one has ever seen one life form change into another. Do you see the difference?Gary

Gravity has never been seen; it is only postulated as an explanation for why bodies are attracted to each other.

And you clearly don’t understand the theory of evolution if you think it involves waiting to see “one life form change into another.” That has never been what the theory of evolution proposes, as silly people think who deny that an ape can become a human. Read up on “descent with modification from a common ancestor” to see what evolution is really about. A good site is evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIADescent.shtml.

Petrus

 

[The_Barbarian]

Evolution says that the all life is the result of random mutations acted upon by natural selection.

No. It says the diversity of life is the result of random mutations and natural selection. Big difference.

The theory has no use for God.

Science can’t use God. Neither can plumbing.

Adding God to evolution is like slapping a coat of paint on a Yugo and calling it a Rolls Royce.

No. It’s like giving a fish a bicycle (to borrow a metaphor)

How does one test to determine whether an event has occurred or not?

Evidence.

You can’t.

If so, forensics, geology, astronomy, archaeology, and a host of other sciences are out of business. Fortunately it is possible to infer the past from the evidence.

Therefore evolution is not testable.

No only can we infer past evolution from evidence, we can directly observe evolution happening today.