Christian vs. public school education

[PeteSinCA]

neo-x, if I understand CT correctly, in the kind of privatization of education she envisions parents would decide which schools their children attended based on what they believe appropriate and their budget. Homeschooling (other than public school independent study programs) in California law - not by design - is private education. Accurately so, IMO. The state of law in the US is that, short of abuse, parents have that right (I believe the US Supreme Court case that so ruled was Yoder vs. Wisconsin). I'm not setting up a straw man argument, just putting some relevant information "on the table". So private schools - church/religious or secular - would have the freedom to present Science within their chosen POV; and parents would have a corresponding freedom of choice. If there is no school that is close enough to particular parents' views, they can homeschool (trust me, the available methods and materials for homeschooling can cover virtually any POV, possibly short of ritual cannibalism) or they can "after-school" (basically, partial homeschooling).

The idea that macro Evolution is at the heart of any science and failure to accept it would be crippling is, well, simply not true. Believers in YEC can be found in virtually every science-related career field - engineering and architecture (physics, chemistry, information), medicine (biology, physiology, etc.), astronomy, etc.. Biology was not the peculiar invention of Darwin or earlier gradualists, nor have believers in creation ceased contributing to biology in the 150+ years since the publication of Origin.

[neo-x]

neo-x, if I understand CT correctly, in the kind of privatization of education she envisions parents would decide which schools their children attended based on what they believe appropriate and their budget. Homeschooling (other than public school independent study programs) in California law - not by design - is private education. Accurately so, IMO. The state of law in the US is that, short of abuse, parents have that right (I believe the US Supreme Court case that so ruled was Yoder vs. Wisconsin). I'm not setting up a straw man argument, just putting some relevant information "on the table". So private schools - church/religious or secular - would have the freedom to present Science within their chosen POV; and parents would have a corresponding freedom of choice. If there is no school that is close enough to particular parents' views, they can homeschool (trust me, the available methods and materials for homeschooling can cover virtually any POV, possibly short of ritual cannibalism) or they can "after-school" (basically, partial homeschooling).

The idea that macro Evolution is at the heart of any science and failure to accept it would be crippling is, well, simply not true. Believers in YEC can be found in virtually every science-related career field - engineering and architecture (physics, chemistry, information), medicine (biology, physiology, etc.), astronomy, etc.. Biology was not the peculiar invention of Darwin or earlier gradualists, nor have believers in creation ceased contributing to biology in the 150+ years since the publication of Origin.

And I appreciate the info you have shared. I am not an american, so their education system and its nuances are really alien to me.

Evolution is at the heart of biology, medicine science, gene therapy, advanced disease cure, study of life in general. The problem is not that YEC can't be scientists. Its what you are studying that matters. Obviously if your school taught you the evolution is BS, how much of that do you think is going to effect the children? Lets just put it in reverse, the very argument here is that schools have turned children away from God by teaching atheistic philosophies. This argument hinges upon the same principle, namely that what schools teach, matters as in the long run they will produce what they are teaching. Teach Godlessness, you get godlessness, teach anti evolution, you get anti evolution (plus all the things associated with it).

Putting churches in power is not the best thing (power in any form corrupt, churches are not immune to that), a church role is not to make policies on education. That's the govt's job and from what I read they haven't done a good one.

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
Putting churches in power is not the best thing (power in any form corrupt, churches are not immune to that), a church role is not to make policies on education. That's the govt's job and from what I read they haven't done a good one.

Neo, I think there's a fundamental disagreement about this in the US. Many here don't believe it's the federal govt's role to control the education system.

The thing with privately run, "church" schools, is that if enough people disagree with policies at the school, people will stop paying them for their service, and go somewhere else. Govt run schools are different. The control of our children's education is in the govt's hands.

[PeteSinCA]

neo-x, disagreement with the Theory of Evolution need not entail a rejection of or a disability in any branch of science. I'm of the YEC persuasion, and I work in electronics, which is applied Physics. I've known physicians who believe in Creation. Disbelief in Evolution is simply no hindrance to learning about and working in genetics, biochemistry, medicine, etc.. Frankly, I think belief in a Designer is helpful in recognizing patterns and expectations that things will follow some sort of designed natural law.

[Jac3510]

Neo,

Just to echo what others have said, while there is a government run educational system that most kids are enrolled in, there is a very, very large private educational system. I was actually home-schooled six of my twelve years, and I can promise you those six years were MUCH better in EVERY respect than the six years I spent being babysat by Uncle Sam. Anyway, a significant part of that private educational system is run by churches. Put differently, there already are a lot of church-run schools, and the kids who come out of them do just as well if not better than their public school counterparts.

Also, I realize that you are a TE, but you, of course, realize that a lot of people disagree with you here. It is just not true that rejecting evolution hinders anyone's ability to work in any field of science--not even biology. In fact, some have argued (rightly, I think) that evolution is actually harming our ability to understand such fields as biology.

You may find these two links interesting:

http://voices.yahoo.com/where-scientifi ... 09360.html
http://creation.com/railroad-wants-monkey-off-its-back

FYI, I don't really do YEC debates, particularly from a scientific perspective. It's not that I think science can or can't address this issue, and it's not that I think I can or can't address the issue. It's that all of us only have so much time to dedicate to certain areas, and the area I have chosen to focus on are primarily philosophical and theological. Coming from my side of things, it's a sad thing to see that those who have decided to dedicate themselves to scientific pursuits discount the reliability of what we know from philosophy and theology. They don't realize that such an attitude is intrinsically theological and philosophical, not scientific. My point is simply that I've concluded that some things can be know better through some areas than others, and I've likewise concluded that what the Bible says is true regardless of what anyone else or anything else says. I'm absolutely convinced that the Bible teaches YEC (though not the traditional 6,000 year model--that's just based on a bad assumption about the nature of genealogies in Genesis), and because of that, it doesn't really matter to me what scientists say on this particular subject.

Look at it this way: one hundred years ago, scientists were adamant that some form of the steady-state model had to be correct. Then they discovered the big bang, which you can't deny now without looking like a fool. What they did was discover the beginning of the universe, which is to say, they finally figured out what we theologians have been saying for millennia. Now they're saying that this beginning happened billions of years ago. Eventually, if Jesus doesn't come back, they'll get it right, too, and figure out that it all happened relatively recently. Again, we're just waiting on science to catch up with God.

And so it is with evolution. We've discovered the Cambrian explosion. We've discovered remarkable similarities between creatures and abilities to adapt to their environments. Evolutionists use that to say that there was a common ancestor. Or, we could just say, "Yup, well God did tell us that He made everything, and that's just what good designers do -- they draw up designs and modify them here and there to create different models of that same design. And wouldn't you expect a smart designer to make His designs able to adapt to a changing world?"

Here, scientists who haven't drunk the kool-aid are starting to catch up with God, too. They're still far behind, but they're figuring it out. And all of that is, again, why I don't really do science debates. I don't have the credentials, and why should I spend the time going to get them when I already know what God says I'm going to figure out after years of studying it? I'm not downplaying the value of that work. Someone has to do it. I just find other things more interesting than fact-checking God--just my personal position. So I say, let those who want to go into that field go for it. Some of them have, and some of them are making arguments about the origins of the universe and mankind, etc. But MOST scientists aren't interested in origins at all. They're interested in how the universe operates RIGHT NOW and they are building technology in light of those facts.

Bottom line: what we need aren't people who are going to assume evolution is true. What we need are people who can look at the way the universe and the organisms in it operate and then build the technologies we need to make life better, more productive, safer, healthier, etc. Kids who graduate from church-run schools or home-schools or whatever are just as capable of that as kids who are educated by government controlled anti-theistic, postmodern, communistic, progressive secularists.

[ClassicalTeacher]

Here is an interesting article I just read today. I lived and worked in Michigan for 15 years. I know the area of Inkster. It is a very poor area with lots of crime. I have lived through the embarrassments of Kwamee Kilpatrick and former governor Jennifer Granholm. Michigan is not my favorite place--mostly liberals and democrats. The schools are atrocious beds of iniquities. And now this. Anyone else disagree with dismantling the public school system especially the teacher unions & federations?

http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolso ... ampaign=nl

[ClassicalTeacher]

Neo,

Just to echo what others have said, while there is a government run educational system that most kids are enrolled in, there is a very, very large private educational system. I was actually home-schooled six of my twelve years, and I can promise you those six years were MUCH better in EVERY respect than the six years I spent being babysat by Uncle Sam. Anyway, a significant part of that private educational system is run by churches. Put differently, there already are a lot of church-run schools, and the kids who come out of them do just as well if not better than their public school counterparts.

Also, I realize that you are a TE, but you, of course, realize that a lot of people disagree with you here. It is just not true that rejecting evolution hinders anyone's ability to work in any field of science--not even biology. In fact, some have argued (rightly, I think) that evolution is actually harming our ability to understand such fields as biology.

You may find these two links interesting:

http://voices.yahoo.com/where-scientifi ... 09360.html
http://creation.com/railroad-wants-monkey-off-its-back

FYI, I don't really do YEC debates, particularly from a scientific perspective. It's not that I think science can or can't address this issue, and it's not that I think I can or can't address the issue. It's that all of us only have so much time to dedicate to certain areas, and the area I have chosen to focus on are primarily philosophical and theological. Coming from my side of things, it's a sad thing to see that those who have decided to dedicate themselves to scientific pursuits discount the reliability of what we know from philosophy and theology. They don't realize that such an attitude is intrinsically theological and philosophical, not scientific. My point is simply that I've concluded that some things can be know better through some areas than others, and I've likewise concluded that what the Bible says is true regardless of what anyone else or anything else says. I'm absolutely convinced that the Bible teaches YEC (though not the traditional 6,000 year model--that's just based on a bad assumption about the nature of genealogies in Genesis), and because of that, it doesn't really matter to me what scientists say on this particular subject.

Look at it this way: one hundred years ago, scientists were adamant that some form of the steady-state model had to be correct. Then they discovered the big bang, which you can't deny now without looking like a fool. What they did was discover the beginning of the universe, which is to say, they finally figured out what we theologians have been saying for millennia. Now they're saying that this beginning happened billions of years ago. Eventually, if Jesus doesn't come back, they'll get it right, too, and figure out that it all happened relatively recently. Again, we're just waiting on science to catch up with God.

And so it is with evolution. We've discovered the Cambrian explosion. We've discovered remarkable similarities between creatures and abilities to adapt to their environments. Evolutionists use that to say that there was a common ancestor. Or, we could just say, "Yup, well God did tell us that He made everything, and that's just what good designers do -- they draw up designs and modify them here and there to create different models of that same design. And wouldn't you expect a smart designer to make His designs able to adapt to a changing world?"

Here, scientists who haven't drunk the kool-aid are starting to catch up with God, too. They're still far behind, but they're figuring it out. And all of that is, again, why I don't really do science debates. I don't have the credentials, and why should I spend the time going to get them when I already know what God says I'm going to figure out after years of studying it? I'm not downplaying the value of that work. Someone has to do it. I just find other things more interesting than fact-checking God--just my personal position. So I say, let those who want to go into that field go for it. Some of them have, and some of them are making arguments about the origins of the universe and mankind, etc. But MOST scientists aren't interested in origins at all. They're interested in how the universe operates RIGHT NOW and they are building technology in light of those facts.

Bottom line: what we need aren't people who are going to assume evolution is true. What we need are people who can look at the way the universe and the organisms in it operate and then build the technologies we need to make life better, more productive, safer, healthier, etc. Kids who graduate from church-run schools or home-schools or whatever are just as capable of that as kids who are educated by government controlled anti-theistic, postmodern, communistic, progressive secularists.

Jac: Beautifully writen, and to the point. Even though I am a science and math teacher for over 25 years, I, too feel unqualified to debate adequately why evolution is false. So, I just don't debate. I also believe that evolution, like belief in God, takes an act of faith. As a matter of fact, I've always said that for me, it takes a greater act of faith to believe that the intricate and perfect order of the universe came about from absolute chaos (evolution) rather than a belief in an Omnipotent God creating everything from nothing. And basically, evolution is not science, but almost like a religious belief. I can hear the screams of outrage coming from the peanut gallery already!

I have never experienced any school children who were taught creationism becoming somehow inept in any scientific field as adults. As a matter of fact, I believe there are numerous brilliant scientists who are not evolutionists. Take for example, Francis Collins. Francis Sellers Collins is an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project. He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Collins also wrote the New York Times bestseller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, (which I've read) which discusses Collins' conversion from atheism to Christianity, evaluates the evidence for Christianity, and argues for theistic evolution. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He is just one example. There are thousands of scientists in every field who also believe evolution to be false. I recently came across a list of scientists who belong to the ID thought. I don't remember where I found it, but I was impressed with the number of scientists and especially their respective scientific disciplines. I'll see if I can find it again and I'll provide a link in case anyone is interested.

The bottom line is that we can see the results of 50 years of poor secular education very clearly. We can also see the difference in those who have come from an education experience which not just includes, but is permeated with the wonders of God and His creation. Like night and day...

[neo-x]

Neo,

Just to echo what others have said, while there is a government run educational system that most kids are enrolled in, there is a very, very large private educational system. I was actually home-schooled six of my twelve years, and I can promise you those six years were MUCH better in EVERY respect than the six years I spent being babysat by Uncle Sam. Anyway, a significant part of that private educational system is run by churches. Put differently, there already are a lot of church-run schools, and the kids who come out of them do just as well if not better than their public school counterparts.

Also, I realize that you are a TE, but you, of course, realize that a lot of people disagree with you here. It is just not true that rejecting evolution hinders anyone's ability to work in any field of science--not even biology. In fact, some have argued (rightly, I think) that evolution is actually harming our ability to understand such fields as biology.

You may find these two links interesting:

http://voices.yahoo.com/where-scientifi ... 09360.html
http://creation.com/railroad-wants-monkey-off-its-back

FYI, I don't really do YEC debates, particularly from a scientific perspective. It's not that I think science can or can't address this issue, and it's not that I think I can or can't address the issue. It's that all of us only have so much time to dedicate to certain areas, and the area I have chosen to focus on are primarily philosophical and theological. Coming from my side of things, it's a sad thing to see that those who have decided to dedicate themselves to scientific pursuits discount the reliability of what we know from philosophy and theology. They don't realize that such an attitude is intrinsically theological and philosophical, not scientific. My point is simply that I've concluded that some things can be know better through some areas than others, and I've likewise concluded that what the Bible says is true regardless of what anyone else or anything else says. I'm absolutely convinced that the Bible teaches YEC (though not the traditional 6,000 year model--that's just based on a bad assumption about the nature of genealogies in Genesis), and because of that, it doesn't really matter to me what scientists say on this particular subject.

Look at it this way: one hundred years ago, scientists were adamant that some form of the steady-state model had to be correct. Then they discovered the big bang, which you can't deny now without looking like a fool. What they did was discover the beginning of the universe, which is to say, they finally figured out what we theologians have been saying for millennia. Now they're saying that this beginning happened billions of years ago. Eventually, if Jesus doesn't come back, they'll get it right, too, and figure out that it all happened relatively recently. Again, we're just waiting on science to catch up with God.

And so it is with evolution. We've discovered the Cambrian explosion. We've discovered remarkable similarities between creatures and abilities to adapt to their environments. Evolutionists use that to say that there was a common ancestor. Or, we could just say, "Yup, well God did tell us that He made everything, and that's just what good designers do -- they draw up designs and modify them here and there to create different models of that same design. And wouldn't you expect a smart designer to make His designs able to adapt to a changing world?"

Here, scientists who haven't drunk the kool-aid are starting to catch up with God, too. They're still far behind, but they're figuring it out. And all of that is, again, why I don't really do science debates. I don't have the credentials, and why should I spend the time going to get them when I already know what God says I'm going to figure out after years of studying it? I'm not downplaying the value of that work. Someone has to do it. I just find other things more interesting than fact-checking God--just my personal position. So I say, let those who want to go into that field go for it. Some of them have, and some of them are making arguments about the origins of the universe and mankind, etc. But MOST scientists aren't interested in origins at all. They're interested in how the universe operates RIGHT NOW and they are building technology in light of those facts.

Bottom line: what we need aren't people who are going to assume evolution is true. What we need are people who can look at the way the universe and the organisms in it operate and then build the technologies we need to make life better, more productive, safer, healthier, etc. Kids who graduate from church-run schools or home-schools or whatever are just as capable of that as kids who are educated by government controlled anti-theistic, postmodern, communistic, progressive secularists.

I don't disagree with the overall point of what you wrote Jac.

Jac you also know that a lot of people (infact lots and lots) disagree with you on your stance. Anyways, I'm fine with it if you choose to hold to that view but I think CT is going beyond that, its not just that rejecting evolution hinders people to learn science (though I certainly think it does) but then if you are taught YEC in school with the idea that evolution is an athiestic/poor/BS/evil theory, and then go to study biology and study evolution, you will have to come to one conclusion either what you were taught was wrong in school or what you are being taught right here is false. And even if one can reject evolution and be a biologist, he will be practicing based on the study of evolution not YEC. Either way, regardless of whether you study YEC or not, on science grounds it will be of no value. And yet to preach to students that evolution is BS, is way wrong when in field they will be doing just that.

And the yahoo article you cited, fails to mention a lot, including (surprisingly)that nearly all research and advances in medicine from the last 20 years to now is based on the fact that humans share DNA with the animal and plant kingdom at large. New treatments to cancer HIV and many others are open to possibility because of evolution science. genetics, microbiology, virology and others, all use evolutionary theory as a cornerstone to work. Modern biology certainly uses evolution at its core.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evoluti ... iucci.html
http://visions8.beyondgenes.com/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-int ... ology.html
I could cite more articles but since you are busy usually and don't want to spend a lot of time debating this topic (reading from your post) I'd understand if you do not want to debate this further.

CT,
Francis Collins is a T.E and he doesn't think evolution is poor or atheistic. Infact C.T you will probably benefit from reading his books, if you haven't already (but I doubt that).

[neo-x]

neo-x, disagreement with the Theory of Evolution need not entail a rejection of or a disability in any branch of science. I'm of the YEC persuasion, and I work in electronics, which is applied Physics. I've known physicians who believe in Creation. Disbelief in Evolution is simply no hindrance to learning about and working in genetics, biochemistry, medicine, etc.. Frankly, I think belief in a Designer is helpful in recognizing patterns and expectations that things will follow some sort of designed natural law.

pete, I am not arguing for that exactly. Im sure there are many people out there who are YEC and doing good in science, my main point was to CT that having a YEC faith (even a 6000 year old one) is not a problem, its a theological position but saying evolution is atheistic philosophy and poor is a serious blunder. Teaching that is wrong.

[neo-x]

For the sake of clarity:
I get the general impression that, CT, Jac, Pete are saying implicitly that evolution is not used in science (based on Jac's links and the general support of the two members of the view), in other words biology can work without evolution?

Please clarify if this is the case in your opinion or not? I certainly think its one way being said here, but I could be wrong.

[PeteSinCA]

Just to echo what others have said, while there is a government run educational system that most kids are enrolled in, there is a very, very large private educational system. I was actually home-schooled six of my twelve years, and I can promise you those six years were MUCH better in EVERY respect than the six years I spent being babysat by Uncle Sam. Anyway, a significant part of that private educational system is run by churches. Put differently, there already are a lot of church-run schools, and the kids who come out of them do just as well if not better than their public school counterparts.

Jac and I are probably a couple of decades apart in age, but our experiences have somewhat in common. I was a student at a parochial school for grades 1-3. Those three years were far and away better than the 9 years in public schools that followed. That was true of the bullying that the PSs could/would not correct. That was true academically. Re the latter, partly due to my personal interests, partly due to the parochial school, I was reading 2 years ahead of my grade level the summer before entering 4th grade in PS; and I was at least half a year ahead in Math.

I get the general impression that, CT, Jac, Pete are saying implicitly that evolution is not used in science (based on Jac's links and the general support of the two members of the view), in other words biology can work without evolution?

What I have been saying - perhaps less than clearly - is that the Theory of Evolution is not essential in any branch of science (except those whose principal focus is Evolution). E.G., Evolution is largely irrelevant to sciences such as Physics of Chemistry. As for Biology, it didn't start with Darwin. Carl Linnaeus' classification work - the basis for the classification system still used in biology - predated Darwin's Origin by over a century. And Linnaeus was, as far as I can tell, a believer in creation (his father was a Lutheran minister; his education at home included religion, and his later education before going to universities included Theology).

There is no intrinsic hindrance in belief in creation, even YEC, to working in almost any branch of science. Belief in creation does not discourage investigating any part of this universe. To the contrary belief in Creation, YEC especially, assumes: an intelligent Designer Who made everything "good"; that this Designer has invited, even commanded, humans to observe and contemplate creation; that this Designer has given humans sense adequate for such observation; that this Designer has given humans the intellect to devise instruments improve and empower such observation; that this Designer has given humans the intellect necessary for such contemplation; an intelligent Designer Who made everything orderly, according to what have come to be called "natural laws". Indeed, would science have developed to the degree it has without the assumptions that flow from belief in Creation, specifically, the Judeo-Christian belief in Creation? IMO, the histories of the Greek, Roman, Islamic, Indian, East Asian, and Pre-Columbian Central American and South American civilizations demonstrate that the answer to that question is, "No."

[ClassicalTeacher]

Neo,

Just to echo what others have said, while there is a government run educational system that most kids are enrolled in, there is a very, very large private educational system. I was actually home-schooled six of my twelve years, and I can promise you those six years were MUCH better in EVERY respect than the six years I spent being babysat by Uncle Sam. Anyway, a significant part of that private educational system is run by churches. Put differently, there already are a lot of church-run schools, and the kids who come out of them do just as well if not better than their public school counterparts.

Also, I realize that you are a TE, but you, of course, realize that a lot of people disagree with you here. It is just not true that rejecting evolution hinders anyone's ability to work in any field of science--not even biology. In fact, some have argued (rightly, I think) that evolution is actually harming our ability to understand such fields as biology.

You may find these two links interesting:

http://voices.yahoo.com/where-scientifi ... 09360.html
http://creation.com/railroad-wants-monkey-off-its-back

FYI, I don't really do YEC debates, particularly from a scientific perspective. It's not that I think science can or can't address this issue, and it's not that I think I can or can't address the issue. It's that all of us only have so much time to dedicate to certain areas, and the area I have chosen to focus on are primarily philosophical and theological. Coming from my side of things, it's a sad thing to see that those who have decided to dedicate themselves to scientific pursuits discount the reliability of what we know from philosophy and theology. They don't realize that such an attitude is intrinsically theological and philosophical, not scientific. My point is simply that I've concluded that some things can be know better through some areas than others, and I've likewise concluded that what the Bible says is true regardless of what anyone else or anything else says. I'm absolutely convinced that the Bible teaches YEC (though not the traditional 6,000 year model--that's just based on a bad assumption about the nature of genealogies in Genesis), and because of that, it doesn't really matter to me what scientists say on this particular subject.

Look at it this way: one hundred years ago, scientists were adamant that some form of the steady-state model had to be correct. Then they discovered the big bang, which you can't deny now without looking like a fool. What they did was discover the beginning of the universe, which is to say, they finally figured out what we theologians have been saying for millennia. Now they're saying that this beginning happened billions of years ago. Eventually, if Jesus doesn't come back, they'll get it right, too, and figure out that it all happened relatively recently. Again, we're just waiting on science to catch up with God.

And so it is with evolution. We've discovered the Cambrian explosion. We've discovered remarkable similarities between creatures and abilities to adapt to their environments. Evolutionists use that to say that there was a common ancestor. Or, we could just say, "Yup, well God did tell us that He made everything, and that's just what good designers do -- they draw up designs and modify them here and there to create different models of that same design. And wouldn't you expect a smart designer to make His designs able to adapt to a changing world?"

Here, scientists who haven't drunk the kool-aid are starting to catch up with God, too. They're still far behind, but they're figuring it out. And all of that is, again, why I don't really do science debates. I don't have the credentials, and why should I spend the time going to get them when I already know what God says I'm going to figure out after years of studying it? I'm not downplaying the value of that work. Someone has to do it. I just find other things more interesting than fact-checking God--just my personal position. So I say, let those who want to go into that field go for it. Some of them have, and some of them are making arguments about the origins of the universe and mankind, etc. But MOST scientists aren't interested in origins at all. They're interested in how the universe operates RIGHT NOW and they are building technology in light of those facts.

Bottom line: what we need aren't people who are going to assume evolution is true. What we need are people who can look at the way the universe and the organisms in it operate and then build the technologies we need to make life better, more productive, safer, healthier, etc. Kids who graduate from church-run schools or home-schools or whatever are just as capable of that as kids who are educated by government controlled anti-theistic, postmodern, communistic, progressive secularists.

I don't disagree with the overall point of what you wrote Jac.

Jac you also know that a lot of people (infact lots and lots) disagree with you on your stance. Anyways, I'm fine with it if you choose to hold to that view but I think CT is going beyond that, its not just that rejecting evolution hinders people to learn science (though I certainly think it does) but then if you are taught YEC in school with the idea that evolution is an athiestic/poor/BS/evil theory, and then go to study biology and study evolution, you will have to come to one conclusion either what you were taught was wrong in school or what you are being taught right here is false. And even if one can reject evolution and be a biologist, he will be practicing based on the study of evolution not YEC. Either way, regardless of whether you study YEC or not, on science grounds it will be of no value. And yet to preach to students that evolution is BS, is way wrong when in field they will be doing just that.

And the yahoo article you cited, fails to mention a lot, including (surprisingly)that nearly all research and advances in medicine from the last 20 years to now is based on the fact that humans share DNA with the animal and plant kingdom at large. New treatments to cancer HIV and many others are open to possibility because of evolution science. genetics, microbiology, virology and others, all use evolutionary theory as a cornerstone to work. Modern biology certainly uses evolution at its core.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evoluti ... iucci.html
http://visions8.beyondgenes.com/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-int ... ology.html
I could cite more articles but since you are busy usually and don't want to spend a lot of time debating this topic (reading from your post) I'd understand if you do not want to debate this further.

CT,
Francis Collins is a T.E and he doesn't think evolution is poor or atheistic. Infact C.T you will probably benefit from reading his books, if you haven't already (but I doubt that).

You obviously did not read my post. I said that I have read Collins' books. And, I am aware that he is a "T.E." and mentioned as much in my post. In addition, I never said that I taught YEC...I said that I lean in that direction, but have not come to any conclusions. I do not believe in evolution. That's what I said.

[ClassicalTeacher]

Just to echo what others have said, while there is a government run educational system that most kids are enrolled in, there is a very, very large private educational system. I was actually home-schooled six of my twelve years, and I can promise you those six years were MUCH better in EVERY respect than the six years I spent being babysat by Uncle Sam. Anyway, a significant part of that private educational system is run by churches. Put differently, there already are a lot of church-run schools, and the kids who come out of them do just as well if not better than their public school counterparts.

Jac and I are probably a couple of decades apart in age, but our experiences have somewhat in common. I was a student at a parochial school for grades 1-3. Those three years were far and away better than the 9 years in public schools that followed. That was true of the bullying that the PSs could/would not correct. That was true academically. Re the latter, partly due to my personal interests, partly due to the parochial school, I was reading 2 years ahead of my grade level the summer before entering 4th grade in PS; and I was at least half a year ahead in Math.

I get the general impression that, CT, Jac, Pete are saying implicitly that evolution is not used in science (based on Jac's links and the general support of the two members of the view), in other words biology can work without evolution?

What I have been saying - perhaps less than clearly - is that the Theory of Evolution is not essential in any branch of science (except those whose principal focus is Evolution). E.G., Evolution is largely irrelevant to sciences such as Physics of Chemistry. As for Biology, it didn't start with Darwin. Carl Linnaeus' classification work - the basis for the classification system still used in biology - predated Darwin's Origin by over a century. And Linnaeus was, as far as I can tell, a believer in creation (his father was a Lutheran minister; his education at home included religion, and his later education before going to universities included Theology).

There is no intrinsic hindrance in belief in creation, even YEC, to working in almost any branch of science. Belief in creation does not discourage investigating any part of this universe. To the contrary belief in Creation, YEC especially, assumes: an intelligent Designer Who made everything "good"; that this Designer has invited, even commanded, humans to observe and contemplate creation; that this Designer has given humans sense adequate for such observation; that this Designer has given humans the intellect to devise instruments improve and empower such observation; that this Designer has given humans the intellect necessary for such contemplation; an intelligent Designer Who made everything orderly, according to what have come to be called "natural laws". Indeed, would science have developed to the degree it has without the assumptions that flow from belief in Creation, specifically, the Judeo-Christian belief in Creation? IMO, the histories of the Greek, Roman, Islamic, Indian, East Asian, and Pre-Columbian Central American and South American civilizations demonstrate that the answer to that question is, "No."

Beautifully written, Pete. Thanks.

[neo-x]

Neo,

Just to echo what others have said, while there is a government run educational system that most kids are enrolled in, there is a very, very large private educational system. I was actually home-schooled six of my twelve years, and I can promise you those six years were MUCH better in EVERY respect than the six years I spent being babysat by Uncle Sam. Anyway, a significant part of that private educational system is run by churches. Put differently, there already are a lot of church-run schools, and the kids who come out of them do just as well if not better than their public school counterparts.

Also, I realize that you are a TE, but you, of course, realize that a lot of people disagree with you here. It is just not true that rejecting evolution hinders anyone's ability to work in any field of science--not even biology. In fact, some have argued (rightly, I think) that evolution is actually harming our ability to understand such fields as biology.

You may find these two links interesting:

http://voices.yahoo.com/where-scientifi ... 09360.html
http://creation.com/railroad-wants-monkey-off-its-back

FYI, I don't really do YEC debates, particularly from a scientific perspective. It's not that I think science can or can't address this issue, and it's not that I think I can or can't address the issue. It's that all of us only have so much time to dedicate to certain areas, and the area I have chosen to focus on are primarily philosophical and theological. Coming from my side of things, it's a sad thing to see that those who have decided to dedicate themselves to scientific pursuits discount the reliability of what we know from philosophy and theology. They don't realize that such an attitude is intrinsically theological and philosophical, not scientific. My point is simply that I've concluded that some things can be know better through some areas than others, and I've likewise concluded that what the Bible says is true regardless of what anyone else or anything else says. I'm absolutely convinced that the Bible teaches YEC (though not the traditional 6,000 year model--that's just based on a bad assumption about the nature of genealogies in Genesis), and because of that, it doesn't really matter to me what scientists say on this particular subject.

Look at it this way: one hundred years ago, scientists were adamant that some form of the steady-state model had to be correct. Then they discovered the big bang, which you can't deny now without looking like a fool. What they did was discover the beginning of the universe, which is to say, they finally figured out what we theologians have been saying for millennia. Now they're saying that this beginning happened billions of years ago. Eventually, if Jesus doesn't come back, they'll get it right, too, and figure out that it all happened relatively recently. Again, we're just waiting on science to catch up with God.

And so it is with evolution. We've discovered the Cambrian explosion. We've discovered remarkable similarities between creatures and abilities to adapt to their environments. Evolutionists use that to say that there was a common ancestor. Or, we could just say, "Yup, well God did tell us that He made everything, and that's just what good designers do -- they draw up designs and modify them here and there to create different models of that same design. And wouldn't you expect a smart designer to make His designs able to adapt to a changing world?"

Here, scientists who haven't drunk the kool-aid are starting to catch up with God, too. They're still far behind, but they're figuring it out. And all of that is, again, why I don't really do science debates. I don't have the credentials, and why should I spend the time going to get them when I already know what God says I'm going to figure out after years of studying it? I'm not downplaying the value of that work. Someone has to do it. I just find other things more interesting than fact-checking God--just my personal position. So I say, let those who want to go into that field go for it. Some of them have, and some of them are making arguments about the origins of the universe and mankind, etc. But MOST scientists aren't interested in origins at all. They're interested in how the universe operates RIGHT NOW and they are building technology in light of those facts.

Bottom line: what we need aren't people who are going to assume evolution is true. What we need are people who can look at the way the universe and the organisms in it operate and then build the technologies we need to make life better, more productive, safer, healthier, etc. Kids who graduate from church-run schools or home-schools or whatever are just as capable of that as kids who are educated by government controlled anti-theistic, postmodern, communistic, progressive secularists.

I don't disagree with the overall point of what you wrote Jac.

Jac you also know that a lot of people (infact lots and lots) disagree with you on your stance. Anyways, I'm fine with it if you choose to hold to that view but I think CT is going beyond that, its not just that rejecting evolution hinders people to learn science (though I certainly think it does) but then if you are taught YEC in school with the idea that evolution is an athiestic/poor/BS/evil theory, and then go to study biology and study evolution, you will have to come to one conclusion either what you were taught was wrong in school or what you are being taught right here is false. And even if one can reject evolution and be a biologist, he will be practicing based on the study of evolution not YEC. Either way, regardless of whether you study YEC or not, on science grounds it will be of no value. And yet to preach to students that evolution is BS, is way wrong when in field they will be doing just that.

And the yahoo article you cited, fails to mention a lot, including (surprisingly)that nearly all research and advances in medicine from the last 20 years to now is based on the fact that humans share DNA with the animal and plant kingdom at large. New treatments to cancer HIV and many others are open to possibility because of evolution science. genetics, microbiology, virology and others, all use evolutionary theory as a cornerstone to work. Modern biology certainly uses evolution at its core.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evoluti ... iucci.html
http://visions8.beyondgenes.com/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-int ... ology.html
I could cite more articles but since you are busy usually and don't want to spend a lot of time debating this topic (reading from your post) I'd understand if you do not want to debate this further.

CT,
Francis Collins is a T.E and he doesn't think evolution is poor or atheistic. Infact C.T you will probably benefit from reading his books, if you haven't already (but I doubt that).

You obviously did not read my post. I said that I have read Collins' books. And, I am aware that he is a "T.E." and mentioned as much in my post. In addition, I never said that I taught YEC...I said that I lean in that direction, but have not come to any conclusions. I do not believe in evolution. That's what I said.

My apologies CT, I misread your post, in a hurry if I may add.

What exactly in evolution do you disagree with? seeing that it is the best theory out there, I often find it strange when people say that. You do not have to answer if you do not want ofcourse. but if you do, I'd be interested to know. By the way if you do not believe in evolution then either there is creationism as in YEC or ID left, nothing else to hold on to.

[neo-x]

Just to echo what others have said, while there is a government run educational system that most kids are enrolled in, there is a very, very large private educational system. I was actually home-schooled six of my twelve years, and I can promise you those six years were MUCH better in EVERY respect than the six years I spent being babysat by Uncle Sam. Anyway, a significant part of that private educational system is run by churches. Put differently, there already are a lot of church-run schools, and the kids who come out of them do just as well if not better than their public school counterparts.

Jac and I are probably a couple of decades apart in age, but our experiences have somewhat in common. I was a student at a parochial school for grades 1-3. Those three years were far and away better than the 9 years in public schools that followed. That was true of the bullying that the PSs could/would not correct. That was true academically. Re the latter, partly due to my personal interests, partly due to the parochial school, I was reading 2 years ahead of my grade level the summer before entering 4th grade in PS; and I was at least half a year ahead in Math.

I get the general impression that, CT, Jac, Pete are saying implicitly that evolution is not used in science (based on Jac's links and the general support of the two members of the view), in other words biology can work without evolution?

What I have been saying - perhaps less than clearly - is that the Theory of Evolution is not essential in any branch of science (except those whose principal focus is Evolution). E.G., Evolution is largely irrelevant to sciences such as Physics of Chemistry. As for Biology, it didn't start with Darwin. Carl Linnaeus' classification work - the basis for the classification system still used in biology - predated Darwin's Origin by over a century. And Linnaeus was, as far as I can tell, a believer in creation (his father was a Lutheran minister; his education at home included religion, and his later education before going to universities included Theology).

There is no intrinsic hindrance in belief in creation, even YEC, to working in almost any branch of science. Belief in creation does not discourage investigating any part of this universe. To the contrary belief in Creation, YEC especially, assumes: an intelligent Designer Who made everything "good"; that this Designer has invited, even commanded, humans to observe and contemplate creation; that this Designer has given humans sense adequate for such observation; that this Designer has given humans the intellect to devise instruments improve and empower such observation; that this Designer has given humans the intellect necessary for such contemplation; an intelligent Designer Who made everything orderly, according to what have come to be called "natural laws". Indeed, would science have developed to the degree it has without the assumptions that flow from belief in Creation, specifically, the Judeo-Christian belief in Creation? IMO, the histories of the Greek, Roman, Islamic, Indian, East Asian, and Pre-Columbian Central American and South American civilizations demonstrate that the answer to that question is, "No."

Thank you for replying pete.

I have always looked upon ID as a philosophical view, rather than a scientific one. I do not see how one can believe in creationism as in YEC and also think that evolution as it is presented, both be true. ID is a bit distinct from YEC, though YEC can have that view. Just to clarify I am not of the view that YEC can not be a scientist. My contention was that you can not say that creationism as in YEC and evolution as its presented are both true. And also that to teach that evolution as a poor theory is very problematic. I respect YEC's, my whole family is YEC. I do however find the view wrong.

Biology may have not started with darwin but its patently wrong to think that modern biology can work without evolutionary theory. The links I have posted speak volumes on the subject and if need be I can post more for discussion. If you would like you can certainly look at some of the links I have posted, its beyond clear that modern biology uses evolutionary theory a lot.