CE- with a grain of salt

[Thorngrub]

...but right about now, it's my lunch break

[strat-0]

Well, I can take Thorny's point on this one. I see no conflict with acknowledging the reality of evolution and also believing in God - that the changes can be brought about by chance mutations that provide an advantage, sometimes over eons of time, and yet the end result could be forseen, desired and somehow facilitated by an intelligence. The problem seems to be that some people feel that evolution is at odds with the creation doctrines of their faith, doctrines that were interpreted and written long before the scientific method was developed (or "re-developed"). Thus, once again, the church feels threatened by science (ban Copernicus now!)

[Galactus]

JAC, that's a really long post and all it says is that things are too complicated for it to have been an accident. Again science does not seek to disprove God, however, "God did that" is not an acceptable answer where science in concerned. Even if God did do that it is science's job to figure out how.t shouldn't be a matter of God vs. science, if you so choose it can be a matter of God AND science though.

[JACkory]

Well, the paper was concerned with the existance of God, and wasn't addressing Intelligent Design or whatever, so I don't really see how it could have been boiled down to "things are too complicated for it to have been an accident"...did you even read it?...furthermore, I certainly am not of the opinion that it is the function of science to disprove God, although one must surely acknowledge that there are many scientists in the field who have raised the banner of "science" over their efforts to deny His existance.

[chrisfan]

admin said:

Well, I can take Thorny's point on this one. I see no conflict with acknowledging the reality of evolution and also believing in God - that the changes can be brought about by chance mutations that provide an advantage, sometimes over eons of time, and yet the end result could be forseen, desired and somehow facilitated by an intelligence. The problem seems to be that some people feel that evolution is at odds with the creation doctrines of their faith, doctrines that were interpreted and written long before the scientific method was developed (or "re-developed"). Thus, once again, the church feels threatened by science (ban Copernicus now!)

I agree with you here. I've been a church going Christian my entire life. When I could not read, there were bible stories told to me, including the story of creation. For as long as I've been able to read, I've read the bible myself, including the story of creation. In science classes throughout my education, I've been taught evolution. The thought never really crossed my mind when I was in school that the two were in conflict.

I heard Bill Bennet speaking about this debate recently, and i thought what he said made A LOT of sense. Evolution is science. Philosophy goes beyond the science of evolution, to question the source of life and the source of evolution. Philosophy does not belong in science class. But philosophy from multiple viewpoints DOES belong in philosophy class.

[JACkory]

...grain of salt for ya!
He he!

[Artknocker]

Is that Ed Asner or Ed Koch???

[Artknocker]

Personally, I think either you teach both or you teach neither...

[Galactus]

artknocker said:

Personally, I think either you teach both or you teach neither...

Could you explain this alittle more? Should they be taught in the class or not at all? Are you saying that if God doesn't exist neither does science? I understand the "teach both" part it's the "or neither" that confuses me.

[strat-0]

Uh-oh. I think there's an "apples and oranges" thing there, but we've been through that quite thoroughly here - anybody remember where? Perhaps a search would be fruitlful.

[phil]

Advocates of intelligent design do not play by the rules of science.
They do not publish papers in peer-reviewed journals,
and their hypothesis cannot be tested by research and the study of evidence.

You cannot prove intelligent design by an experiment
and if you teach both in a SCIENCE class
you give the idea that there are two schools of thought within science !!

The earth is either round or flat but it cannot be both.

Darwin theory is WIDELY regarded as one of the best-supported ideas in science,
the ONLY explanation for the diversity of life on earth,
grounded in DECADES of study and OBJECTIVE evidence.

[Artknocker]

As neither is proven, it's only right and fair that if you teach one you have to include the other. If you can't do that, then don't teach either one.

[JACkory]

Darwin's theory, though, is just that...a THEORY. As such, it should be taught as such. I don't have a problem with it being taught in school as a theory, but too often it is taught as fact. That it is not.

[chrisfan]

artknocker said:

As neither is proven, it's only right and fair that if you teach one you have to include the other. If you can't do that, then don't teach either one.

Are you talking about science class, or school in general?

[JACkory]

And when it IS taught properly, viz a viz as a "theory", ALTERNATE theories should also be examined.
And that's not just a Christian's way of getting his foot in the door, as it were...creation mythologies abound. Darwin's theory of evolution is just the most recent.
IMO, of course.