On Creationism/Evolution in Schools

[Ivellious]

See, Byblos, that's where I would disagree with your assessment. Biology is no different in how it deals with new ideas than other fields. The thing is, since the Darwinian revolution in the early twentieth century, there has been no better explanation for the world around us than evolution. There have been other ideas that have been quickly rejected, but that's either because they were wrong, they were bad science, or (more commonly) they were simply a religious concept wrapped in "scientific" language. See: creationism, creation science, Christian science, intelligent design, etc. It's not that biologists just have some kind of evil scheme to keep new ideas out, it's that no one has brought any legitimate scientific alternative to the table.

Now take, say, archaeology. They are essentially studying a microcosm of evolutionary history, specifically the "evolution" of humans and human culture and development. Their research methods and studies are almost literally identical to much of how biologists study evolution. When you get down to it, the two are highly analogous: Both have an established framework of how evolutionary history/human history occurred, and new research and discoveries constantly tweak the details of the field. For instance, while biologists have to tweak the timelines of whale evolution with new fossil discoveries, archaeologists have to tweak the timelines of human settlements and migrations constantly. That doesn't mean that archaeology is just flat wrong when they have to adjust things, but for some reason people on this site have said that if biologists tweak the timelines of evolution that it means the theory is completely invalid. That's a double standard that I'm trying to point out with the analogy.

And as far as new ideas in other fields...If I came to a group of astronomers and said that I wanted cash and university support for an idea that was half-baked and completely contradicted the entire field of astronomy, of course I would be mocked and rejected. Same goes if I was an archaeologist that wanted cash to study how all of our current migration histories for humans are all wrong, I would likely be turned away as well. Biology is no different than any other science in this way. It just gets the most headlines when it does take a stance against things like creation science being taught alongside evolution.

[PaulSacramento]

Honestly, the issues isn't evolution per say, its "Darwinism".

[PaulSacramento]

Here you go Sam:
http://biologos.org/resources/find/Essay

A bunch of essays you can read through that gives you an idea about evolution and the view that it doesn't go against bible teachings.

[Sam1995]

Here you go Sam:
http://biologos.org/resources/find/Essay

A bunch of essays you can read through that gives you an idea about evolution and the view that it doesn't go against bible teachings.

Thanks Paul!

SB

[Kurieuo]

I've also never met anybody who considers philosophy to be empirical evidence, did the people who you know support that view happen to be mad also?

You do know that philosophy is the foundation for all sciences, right?

Oh, of course, but, as funny and contradictory as this sounds, the cannot make philosophy empirical because it is purely thought. Science is empirical because it is observable.

SB

Actually, science - physical sciences - work with empirical data. What is inferred or deduced belongs to logic which is a philosophical affair.

So, if it is the case scientists can infer conclusions based on observed data, then what of theologians who infer from an expanding universe there was a beginning and that such a cause must necessarily be external to our physical world?

Yes, physical sciences work with empirical data. Logic is a philosophical affair, but that does not make logic empirical,

I'm not arguing otherwise, but maybe that is an RCC position?

And yet, empircal methods are based on non-sensory reasoning. This is why Positivists like Dawkins appears to be, fall on their own sword.

it is simply the thought process that we use to come to scientific conclusions, it si empirical evidence from physical science which provides the proof that what we have thought appears to be true in the real world.

Arguing angels dancing on the tip of a pin, but I'd think empirical evidence at a base level is quite plain to all to be seen in virtue of their nature which is sensory.

Empirical evidence can be gathered for a theory through physical sciences, but this is to delve deeper into understanding how the world works. However, physical science isn't required for a baby to develop a legitimate framework of the world and way things work -- whether it's grabbing for their bottle or wacking a hanging toy. Such is just learning from experience.

But I'm not really sure the point of this.... except that what a scientist of any worldview deduces from empirical evidence belongs to the realm of logic coloured by subjective tastes really.

How could the same be with God when God does not contain mere human qualities such as physical features? Sure, we can figure out more about God's creation through logic and scientific discoveries, but does that mean we can find God through empirical evidence alone? Not at all.

I'd recommend to you Romans 1:20 which speaks otherwise.

Your claim that evidence for God cannot be empirical in nature is wrong. Circumstantial empirical evidence is quite plain to those who see it.

[Kurieuo]

So then, Sam and Kurieuo and anyone else, is my statement about the other sciences that operate similarly to evolutionary biology being false sciences true to you? I'm curious to see if anyone has a response to that.

neo-x wrote:read biology sam



Well there you have it Sam.

As blunt as it sounds, I tend to agree with Neo here. It's awfully silly to say you don't accept something when you don't understand it. Like I said earlier, if someone expects me or someone else on here to explain literally the entire science of evolution then they are crazy. Buy a (legitimate) evolutionary biology textbook or take a course on evolution at a (legitimate) university. I can recommend textbooks.

I'm not sure what you're asking. Perhaps you could phrase the exact question?

Teach evolution, but shove literary works from peer reviewed journals which shows what areas are not fully decided upon, rather than some of the broad-stroked white-washed teaching that goes on, even from student textbooks as I understand. As for creation -- quite frankly I don't give a damn.

The US gets their knickers too much in a knot over nothing. As I've discussed here, phyiscal sciences need logic and reasoning to draw conclusions. So, if something empirical smacks of something other, why not just have a short 5 minute discussion and the continue learning whatever the cirriculum is?

It's really all stupid Atheist/Christian games when one stands back from it all and observes.

[Proinsias]

It's really all stupid Atheist/Christian games when one stands back from it all and observes.

[Sam1995]

How could the same be with God when God does not contain mere human qualities such as physical features? Sure, we can figure out more about God's creation through logic and scientific discoveries, but does that mean we can find God through empirical evidence alone? Not at all.

I'd recommend to you Romans 1:20 which speaks otherwise.

Your claim that evidence for God cannot be empirical in nature is wrong. Circumstantial empirical evidence is quite plain to those who see it.

[For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. - Romans 1:20 NIV]

I never said that God cannot be empirical in nature. I said that we cannot simply find God through empirical data alone, if this world was totally based on empirical data then I would never have given my life to Christ. I understand that this is different for different people, but I'm not sure how only empirical evidence can lead us to God, surely that's only God revealing 1 part of His character out of many, doesn't seem like too much of a revelation to me.

SB

[neo-x]

Sam1995 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:27 am

You've clearly already read it, you could just show me.

You don't get it. You form opinions on things you have not studied, how intelligent is that? biology is best explained though evolution. Intelligent design is simply a philosophical take on the thing, nothing more. Ivel can point you to some good books on biology and evolution. The reason it is supported is because it is a fact. People disagree, that's fine but to refuse science which is well established, you have to know what you are dealing with. you have to start asking questions, away form the battle ground of atheist vs theist mentality. Study, then form your opinion. Denying evolution, is like denying the Holocaust or saying the earth is flat, and no amount of evidence can convince those people too. Why? They choose to dismiss it before hand.

[bippy123]

Sam1995 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:27 am

You've clearly already read it, you could just show me.

You don't get it. You form opinions on things you have not studied, how intelligent is that? biology is best explained though evolution. Intelligent design is simply a philosophical take on the thing, nothing more. Ivel can point you to some good books on biology and evolution. The reason it is supported is because it is a fact. People disagree, that's fine but to refuse science which is well established, you have to know what you are dealing with. you have to start asking questions, away form the battle ground of atheist vs theist mentality. Study, then form your opinion. Denying evolution, is like denying the Holocaust or saying the earth is flat, and no amount of evidence can convince those people too. Why? They choose to dismiss it before hand.

Neo you mean micro evolution don't you? Because macroevolution is a certified fairy tale.
Adaptation is a scientific fact and I think oec's (such as myself) as well as yec's as well as theistic evolutionists can agree upon, and I agree that we should also learn to distinguish between evolution and Darwinian evolution.

[neo-x]

Neo you mean micro evolution don't you? Because macroevolution is a certified fairy tale.

I meant both Bippy, even if I concede that Macro-evolution is a fairly tale (which I don't think it is), it is a fairly tale which makes perfect sense. But my most important point is that Sam should study biology to understand more. Sitting on the side line won't help. Someone will always tell you something which you have to believe because you don't know about it.

[Kurieuo]

How could the same be with God when God does not contain mere human qualities such as physical features? Sure, we can figure out more about God's creation through logic and scientific discoveries, but does that mean we can find God through empirical evidence alone? Not at all.

I'd recommend to you Romans 1:20 which speaks otherwise.

Your claim that evidence for God cannot be empirical in nature is wrong. Circumstantial empirical evidence is quite plain to those who see it.

[For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. - Romans 1:20 NIV]

I never said that God cannot be empirical in nature. I said that we cannot simply find God through empirical data alone, if this world was totally based on empirical data then I would never have given my life to Christ. I understand that this is different for different people, but I'm not sure how only empirical evidence can lead us to God, surely that's only God revealing 1 part of His character out of many, doesn't seem like too much of a revelation to me.

SB

I sincerely believe there are those saved, particularly before Christ, on the basis of their response to God through natural revelation. Take care not to broad stroke what might be true of yourself to what must be universally true of others.

I can agree with you though that specifics of God may be hidden, and certainly nothing beats the special revelation we have with Scripture. But keep in mind the God we worship is also personal so it's not necesarily all one way. Just like God might give one over to their ignorance, God could equally positively respond in a special way whether via realistic dreams, visions or more directly based on one's response to natural revelation.